Wildlife Baseline Report

WILDLIFE
BASELINE REPORT
DOVER COMMERCIAL PROJECT
Submitted to:
Dover Operating Corp.
December 2010 09-1346-1011

EXECUTIVE -i- Wildlife Baseline Report
December 2010
SUMMARY
Dover Operating Corp. (Dover OPCO) proposes to develop and operate a
commercial scheme for the recovery of bitumen from the McMurray Formation
approximately 95 km northwest of Fort McMurray, Alberta. The Dover
Commercial Project (the Project) is located in Townships 92, 93, 94, 95 and 96,
Ranges 15, 16, 17 and 18 West of the Fourth Meridian (W4M) and will use in
situ Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) extraction well pairs to recover
oil. Baseline environmental surveys have been completed to support the
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Project.
Baseline wildlife surveys were conducted in the Local Study Area (LSA) during
2008, 2009 and 2010. Surveys completed included:
 ungulate aerial surveys;

 winter track count surveys;
 photographic bait stations;
 beaver surveys;
 bat surveys;
 nocturnal owl call surveys;
 breeding bird surveys;
 nocturnal amphibian surveys; and
 marsh bird surveys.
Surveys targeted a variety of wildlife species and guilds, and an attempt was
made to focus on species of concern to the extent practical (i.e., species listed
nationally or provincially, or with substantial ecological, cultural or economic
value). Data collected for the Project were compared with those from EIAs and
baseline reports completed for other projects in the Regional Study Area (RSA)
to better determine conditions in the broader landscape.
Key Indicator Resources (KIRs) were selected using the criteria established by
the Sustainable Ecosystems Working Group (SEWG) of the Cumulative
Environmental Management Association (CEMA 2006). Criteria used to select
wildlife KIRs included environmental and resource use importance.
Environmental criteria involve sustaining viable and healthy populations of
wildlife, particularly for species listed either provincially or federally
(CEMA 2006). The ecological functions provided by a species were considered.
Resource use criteria involve maintaining opportunities for consumptive, non-
commercial use of wildlife by both aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. Key
Indicator Resources selection also considered available Traditional Knowledge
(TK) information provided in connection with the Project or identified by
Golder Associates
EXECUTIVE - ii - Wildlife Baseline Report
December 2010
SUMMARY
aboriginal people through previous regulatory processes. Selection of KIRs was
discussed with Alberta Environment (AENV) and Alberta Sustainable Resource
Development (ASRD) during the period prior to submission of the EIA to allow
for alignment between the regulatory authorities and Dover OPCO on the scope
of the wildlife assessment.
Twenty-three species of provincial concern were recorded in the LSA during

baseline surveys. These include woodland caribou, wolverine, Canada lynx,
fisher, silver-haired bat, northern long-eared bat, boreal toad, Canadian toad and
several bird species. Of the species observed, the woodland caribou is listed
federally as “Threatened” (Species at Risk Public Registry 2010, internet site)
and provincially as “At Risk (ASRD 2006, internet site). The remaining species
are all listed as “Sensitive” or “May Be at Risk” provincially (ASRD 2006,
internet site) and of these, the common nighthawk is listed federally as
“Threatened”, while the boreal toad is federally listed by the Committee on the
Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) as “Special Concern”
(Species at Risk Public Registry 2010, internet site). Olive-sided flycatchers are
considered “Secure” provincially, but “Threatened” federally. The woodland
caribou, boreal toad, olive-sided flycatcher and common nighthawk are all on
Schedule 1 of the Species At Risk Act (Species at Risk Public Registry 2010,
internet site).
Aerial surveys were conducted during 2008 to 2010 to assess ungulate

populations in and around the LSA. Thirty-seven woodland caribou and 101
moose were observed during the surveys. Minimum densities of
0.023 caribou/km2 and 0.038 moose/km2 were calculated in 2010 Cow-calf
ratios indicate that productivity in and around the LSA was high for caribou
100:50 to 100:63 and low for moose 100:13 to 100:28.
Winter track count surveys were conducted to sample terrestrial carnivores,

ungulates and rodents. Photographic bait stations were also employed to target
elusive wide-ranging carnivores. A total of 120.4 km of linear transect were
surveyed during winter and 20 cameras were deployed for 36 days in winter,
26 days in spring and 28 days in summer.
Caribou tracks were found 18 times, yielding a track density of

0.03 tracks/km-day. Caribou track density recorded in the LSA is moderate
compared to other locations in the Oil Sands Region. One photograph of a
woodland caribou was obtained at a bait station. Caribou sign was observed
incidentally during other wildlife surveys.
Forty-five moose tracks were recorded during the winter track count surveys for
a density of 0.08 tracks/km-day. Track density was lower than in other regional
Golder Associates
EXECUTIVE - iii - Wildlife Baseline Report
December 2010
SUMMARY
studies, supporting aerial survey results, which suggest moose density in the LSA
is relatively low. Five moose were photographed at bait stations.
Fourteen wolf tracks were observed during the winter track count surveys in and
around the LSA for a track density of 0.03 tracks/km-day, which is low
compared to other results obtained from the Oil Sands Region. Seven wolves
were photographed at bait stations in the LSA. Wolves and their sign were noted
incidentally during other wildlife surveys. An average of 3.1 wolves were
harvested annually from Registered Fur Management Areas (RFMAs)
overlapping the LSA between 2000 and 2009.
No coyote tracks were observed during winter track count surveys, which is
lower than track densities from previous surveys in the region. Coyotes do
occasionally occur within the LSA: one was photographed at a bait station and
another was observed during the ungulate aerial survey. An average of
6.4 coyotes were harvested annually from RFMAs overlapping the LSA between
2000 and 2009.
No red fox tracks were observed during the winter track count surveys within the
LSA and no red foxes were photographed at bait stations. Although probably
rare, foxes are present; an average of 4.1 foxes were harvested annually from
RFMAs overlapping the LSA between 2000 and 2009.
Canada lynx tracks were detected 127 times during winter track surveys in the
LSA. Two photographs of Canada lynx were taken during the photographic bait
station survey. An average of 12.6 Canada lynx were harvested annually from
RFMAs overlapping the LSA between 2000 and 2009. Increasing harvests from
2007 to 2009 suggest that Canada lynx may currently be increasing toward a
peak in their 10-year cycle.
Thirty photographs of black bears were obtained during the photographic bait
station sessions in the LSA. Black bears and their sign were recorded
incidentally during other terrestrial surveys in the LSA. A single black bear was
reported trapped in RFMAs overlapping the LSA between 2000 and 2009. Black
bears are infrequently targeted by trappers in northeastern Alberta. However, the
typical method of human harvest is through licensed hunting, but numbers taken
by hunters within the RSA and LSA are unavailable.
No wolverine tracks were observed during winter track count surveys in and
around the LSA, but wolverines were photographed twice at bait stations. An
average of 0.3 wolverines were harvested annually from RFMAs overlapping the
LSA between 2000 and 2009.
Golder Associates
EXECUTIVE - iv - Wildlife Baseline Report
December 2010
SUMMARY
In and around the LSA, a total of 320 combined fisher and marten track records
were recorded, for a density of 0.57 tracks/km-day. Nine marten and four fisher
photographs were obtained at bait stations. An average of 7.8 marten and
7.3 fisher were harvested annually from RFMAs overlapping the LSA between
2000 and 2009.
Weasel tracks were recorded 116 times in and around the LSA during the winter
track count surveys, for an overall track density of 0.21 tracks/km-day. This falls
within the range of weasel track densities reported in the Oil Sands Region. No
photographs of weasels were taken during any of the photographic bait station
sessions. An average of 23.4 weasels were harvested annually from RFMAs
A total of 212 beaver lodges and 480 dams were observed during the beaver
aerial surveys in and around the LSA. Of these, 133 lodges and 297 dams
appeared to be in use. Beaver lodge density was 0.28 lodges/km of waterways
and shoreline, while active beaver lodge density was 0.18 lodges/km of
waterways and shoreline. Four food caches were recorded and five beavers were
seen swimming. As expected, beavers occurred along watercourses and in
marshy areas near their preferred food items, including aspen, birch and willow.
Four beavers were recorded incidentally during other wildlife surveys in the
LSA. An average of 40.8 beavers were harvested annually from RFMAs
Muskrats were not recorded incidentally during field surveys. However, an

average of 20.0 muskrats were harvested annually from RFMAs overlapping the
LSA between 2000 and 2009.
Bat capture surveys were conducted in and around the LSA. Thirty mist-netting
sites were operated for a total of 382.3 mist-net hours. Eighty-seven bats were
captured including 43 little-brown bats, 19 northern long-eared bats and 25
silver-haired bats. Overall capture success was 0.23 bats per mist-net hour.
Sixty-six call detection plots were surveyed for a total of 380 detector hours.
Nine species/species groups were identified based on call analysis: hoary bat,
little brown bat, northern long-eared bat, red bat, silver-haired bat, big
brown/silver-haired bats, little brown/northern long-eared bats, and high and low
frequency bats. Relative bat activity was lower than that reported for other
studies in the Oil Sands Region.
Owl surveys were conducted at 37 plots in 17 habitat types in and around the
LSA. Twenty-nine owls comprising three different species were documented
including 21 boreal owls, two barred owls and six great horned owls. Owl
detections had an average density of 0.7 owls per plot. Detected species richness
Golder Associates
EXECUTIVE -v- Wildlife Baseline Report
December 2010
SUMMARY
had an average of 0.7 species per plot. Incidental observations of owls during
other ground-based wildlife surveys included three great grey owls, two barred
owls and one great horned owl.
Twenty-two call playback surveys were conducted for marsh birds during June 2
to 5, 2010. Yellow rails were specifically targeted during an additional
twenty-five playbacks conducted July 7 and 8, 2010. One sora and one yellow
rail were detected. In addition, three American bitterns were detected
incidentally during other wildlife surveys.
Sixty-three bird species and 722 individual birds were recorded within breeding
bird plots in and around the LSA. The seven most commonly observed species
comprised 52% of all observations. Tennessee warbler was the most commonly
detected species. Provincially and federally listed bird species that were
identified either during formal bird surveys or incidentally include: the American
bittern, barred owl, bay-breasted warbler, black-throated green warbler, brown
creeper, Cape May warbler, common nighthawk, common yellowthroat, great
grey owl, least flycatcher, olive-sided flycatcher, pileated woodpecker, sandhill
crane, sora and yellow rail.
A total of 202 plots were sampled during amphibian surveys conducted in and
around the LSA. Boreal chorus frogs and wood frogs were recorded in 2008 and
2009, but only boreal chorus frogs were heard during the surveys in 2010. A
Canadian toad and two boreal (western) toads were recorded during the 2008 call
surveys. These species were not heard in 2009 or 2010. Boreal chorus frogs were
the most numerous, representing 80% of all amphibians recorded. Estimates of
abundance are less reliable for boreal chorus frogs because these data include
approximations of large choruses. Surveys for breeding evidence (e.g., egg
clusters, egg strings and tadpoles) were conducted in 2010 and none was found in
and around the LSA.
Two areas designated as important for wildlife on a regional scale are partially
located in the LSA. The West Side of the Athabasca River (WSAR) woodland
caribou range partly overlaps with the central and southeastern portions of the
LSA, and the Red Earth woodland caribou range intersects the very northern
edge of the LSA. Three Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs) within the
Boreal Natural Region overlap with the LSA; ESAs 704b, 548 and 693. ESA
626 is located just outside the LSA. No important moose areas occur in the LSA.
Golder Associates
Dover Commercial Project - vi - Wildlife Baseline Report
December 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 STUDY OBJECTIVES .....................................................................................................3
1.2 STUDY AREAS ...............................................................................................................4
1.2.1 Regional Study Area ........................................................................................4
1.2.2 Local Study Area ..............................................................................................7
2 METHODS ................................................................................................................ 10

2.1 WILDLIFE BASELINE SURVEYS .................................................................................10
2.1.1 Ungulate Aerial Survey ..................................................................................12
2.1.2 Winter Track Count Survey ............................................................................15
2.1.3 Photographic Bait Stations.............................................................................18
2.1.4 Beaver Survey................................................................................................21
2.1.5 Bat Surveys ....................................................................................................23
2.1.6 Nocturnal Owl Call Survey .............................................................................27
2.1.7 Marsh Bird Surveys ........................................................................................29
2.1.8 Breeding Bird Surveys ...................................................................................32
2.1.9 Amphibian Surveys ........................................................................................35
2.2 INCIDENTAL WILDLIFE SIGHTINGS ...........................................................................39
2.3 SPECIES OF CONCERN ..............................................................................................39
2.4 IMPORTANT WILDLIFE HABITAT................................................................................40
3 RESULTS — MAMMALS .......................................................................................... 41

3.1 UNGULATES .................................................................................................................41
3.1.1 Woodland Caribou .........................................................................................41
3.1.2 Moose ............................................................................................................46
3.1.3 White-Tailed Deer and Mule Deer .................................................................49
3.2 CANIDS (DOGS) ...........................................................................................................50
3.2.1 Wolves ...........................................................................................................51
3.2.2 Coyotes ..........................................................................................................53
3.2.3 Red Foxes ......................................................................................................54
3.3 FELIDS (CATS) .............................................................................................................55
3.3.1 Canada Lynx ..................................................................................................55
3.3.2 Cougars..........................................................................................................56
3.4 BEARS ...........................................................................................................................57
3.4.1 Black Bears ....................................................................................................57
3.4.2 Grizzly Bears ..................................................................................................58
3.5 MUSTELIDS (WEASEL FAMILY)..................................................................................59
3.5.1 Wolverines .....................................................................................................59
3.5.2 Fishers and Martens ......................................................................................60
3.5.3 Weasels .........................................................................................................62
3.5.4 Semi-Aquatic Mustelids .................................................................................63
3.6 SEMI-AQUATIC RODENTS ..........................................................................................64
3.6.1 Beavers ..........................................................................................................64
3.6.2 Muskrats.........................................................................................................65
3.7 BATS .............................................................................................................................65
4 RESULTS – BIRDS ................................................................................................... 72
Golder Associates
Dover Commercial Project - vii - Wildlife Baseline Report
December 2010
4.1 OWLS ............................................................................................................................72

4.2 MARSH BIRDS ..............................................................................................................75
4.3 BREEDING BIRD COMMUNITIES................................................................................78
5 RESULTS — AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES ........................................................... 91

5.1 AMPHIBIANS.................................................................................................................91
5.2 REPTILES .....................................................................................................................98
6 RESULTS — IMPORTANT WILDLIFE HABITAT ..................................................... 99

6.1 WILDLIFE SPECIES BIODIVERSITY ...........................................................................99
6.2 IMPORTANT WILDLIFE AREAS.................................................................................100
6.3 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS .......................................................................100
7 RESULTS — SPECIES OF CONCERN IN AND AROUND THE LOCAL

STUDY AREA ......................................................................................................... 102
7.1 “AT RISK” SPECIES ....................................................................................................105
7.1.1 Woodland Caribou .......................................................................................105
7.2 “MAY BE AT RISK” SPECIES .....................................................................................106
7.2.1 Canadian Toad.............................................................................................106
7.2.2 Northern Long-Eared Bat .............................................................................107
7.2.3 Wolverine .....................................................................................................108
7.3 “SENSITIVE” SPECIES ...............................................................................................108
7.3.1 American Bittern...........................................................................................108
7.3.2 American White Pelican ...............................................................................109
7.3.3 Barred Owl ...................................................................................................109
7.3.4 Bay-Breasted Warbler ..................................................................................110
7.3.5 Canada Lynx ................................................................................................110
7.3.6 Black-Throated Green Warbler ....................................................................111
7.3.7 Brown Creeper .............................................................................................111
7.3.8 Cape May Warbler .......................................................................................112
7.3.9 Common Nighthawk .....................................................................................112
7.3.10 Common Yellowthroat ..................................................................................112
7.3.11 Fisher ...........................................................................................................113
7.3.12 Great Grey Owl ............................................................................................114
7.3.13 Hoary Bat .....................................................................................................114
7.3.14 Least Flycatcher ...........................................................................................115
7.3.15 Olive-Sided Flycatcher .................................................................................115
7.3.16 Pileated Woodpecker ...................................................................................116
7.3.17 Red Bat ........................................................................................................116
7.3.18 Sandhill Crane..............................................................................................117
7.3.19 Sharp-Tailed Grouse ....................................................................................117
7.3.20 Silver-Haired Bat ..........................................................................................118
7.3.21 Sora ..............................................................................................................118
7.3.22 Boreal (Western) Toad .................................................................................119
7.4 “UNDETERMINED” SPECIES .....................................................................................119
7.4.1 Yellow Rail ...................................................................................................119
7.5 “SECURE” KEY INDICATOR RESOURCES ..............................................................120
7.5.1 Beavers ........................................................................................................120
7.5.2 Black Bears ..................................................................................................120
7.5.3 Moose ..........................................................................................................121
7.6 NON-NATIVE AND INVASIVE SPECIES....................................................................121
8 CLOSURE ............................................................................................................... 123
Golder Associates
Dover Commercial Project - viii - Wildlife Baseline Report
December 2010
9 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 124

9.1 LITERATURE CITED...................................................................................................124
9.2 INTERNET SOURCES ................................................................................................148
9.3 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS ..............................................................................150
10 ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................... 151
11 GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................ 153
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Local Study Area Physiographic Setting .................................................................9

Table 2 Wildlife Surveys Conducted In and Around the Local Study Area ........................11
Table 3 Vegetation Types Sampled During the Winter Track Count Surveys In and
Around the Local Study Area, 2008, 2009 and 2010.............................................18
Table 4 Anabat Analysis Categories...................................................................................26
Table 5 Number of Caribou Observations by Age-Sex and Vegetation Type
Recorded In and Around the Local Study Area During Ungulate Aerial
Surveys, 2008 through 2010..................................................................................46
Table 6 Number of Moose Observations by Age-Sex and Vegetation Type
Surveys, 2008 to 2010 ...........................................................................................48
Table 7 Survey Effort and Capture Success for Ecosite Phases Sampled During
Bat Surveys In and Around the Local Study Area, 2008, 2009 and 2010 .............68
Table 8 Number of Passes Produced by Bats Detected In and Around the Local
Study Area, 2008, 2009 and 2010 .........................................................................69
Table 9 Number of Feeding Buzzes Produced by Bats Detected In and Around
the Local Study Area, 2008, 2009 and 2010 .........................................................70
Table 10 Habitat Types at Owl Survey Plot Locations In and Around the Local
Study Area .............................................................................................................74
Table 11 Owls Recorded In the Local Study Area by Habitat Type, 2008 ...........................75
Table 12 Marsh Birds Detected by Wetlands Type During Marsh Bird Surveys In
the Local Study Area .............................................................................................78
Table 13 Yellow Rails Detected by Wetlands Type During Yellow Rail Surveys In
the Local Study Area .............................................................................................78
Table 14 Breeding Bird Point Counts Habitat Types In and Around the Local Study
Area, 2008 and 2010 .............................................................................................80
Table 15 Breeding Bird Detections In and Around the Local Study Area, 2008 and
2010 .......................................................................................................................82
Table 16 Breeding Bird Species Richness, Diversity and Relative Abundance by
Ecosite Phase and Wetlands Type In and Around the Local Study Area,
2008 and 2010 .......................................................................................................86
Table 17 Tukey Honestly Significant Difference Post Hoc Test Results for Pairwise
Ecosite Phase and Wetlands Type Comparisons of Breeding Bird Species
Richness, Abundance and Diversity in the Local Study Area, 2008 and
2010 .......................................................................................................................87
Table 18 Number of Amphibian Observations In and Around the Local Study Area,
2008, 2009 and 2010 .............................................................................................93
Table 19 Number of Amphibian Observations by Ecosite Phase and Wetlands Type
In and Around the Local Study Area, 2008, 2009, 2010........................................94
Golder Associates
Dover Commercial Project - ix - Wildlife Baseline Report
December 2010
Table 20 Mean Relative Abundance of Boreal Chorus Frogs per Habitat and
Waterbody Group in the Regional Study Area ......................................................95
Table 21 Mean Relative Abundance of Wood Frogs per Habitat and Waterbody
Group in the Regional Study Area .........................................................................96
Table 22 Mean Number of Canadian Toads per Habitat and Waterbody Group in
the Regional Study Area ........................................................................................97
Table 23 Amphibian Habitat Requirements ..........................................................................97
Table 24 Species and Bird Communities of Special Concern Observed Within the
Local Study Area..................................................................................................102
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Project Location .......................................................................................................2

Figure 2 Terrestrial Regional Study Area...............................................................................5
Figure 3 Terrestrial Resources Local Study Area ..................................................................8
Figure 4 Ungulate Aerial Survey Transects In and Around the Local Study Area,
2008 through 2010 .................................................................................................13
Figure 5 Winter Track Transect Locations In and Around the Local Study Area,
2008 Through 2010 ...............................................................................................16
Figure 6 Photographic Bait Station Locations In and Around the Local Study Area,
2010 .......................................................................................................................20
Figure 7 Aerial Survey Routes for Beaver In and Around the Local Study Area,
2008 .......................................................................................................................22
Figure 8 Bat Survey Locations In and Around the Local Study Area, 2008 Through
2010 .......................................................................................................................24
Figure 9 Owl Survey Locations in the Local Study Area, 2010............................................28
Figure 10 Marsh Bird and Yellow Rail Survey Locations in the Local Study Area,
2010 .......................................................................................................................30
Figure 11 Breeding Bird Point Count Locations In and Around the Local Study Area,
2008 and 2010 .......................................................................................................33
Figure 12 Amphibian Survey Locations In and Around the Local Study Area, 2008
Through 2010.........................................................................................................36
Figure 13 Ungulates Observed in and Around the Local Study Area During Ungulate
Aerial Surveys, 2010 ..............................................................................................42
Figure 14 Ungulate Track and Incidental Observations in and Around the Local
Study Area, 2008 through 2010 .............................................................................44
Figure 15 Photographic Bait Station Observations In and Around the Local Study
Area, 2010 .............................................................................................................45
Figure 16 Wolf, Coyote and Canada Lynx Track and Incidental Observations in and
Around the Local Study Area, 2008 Through 2010 ...............................................52
Figure 17 Fisher/Marten Track and Incidental Observations in and Around the Local
Study Area, 2008 Through 2010............................................................................61
Figure 18 Bat Species of Concern Observed In and Around the Local Study Area
During Bat Surveys, 2008 through 2010 ...............................................................67
Figure 19 Owls Observed In the Local Study Area During Owl Surveys, 2010.....................73
Figure 20 Marsh Birds and Yellow Rails Observed In the Local Study Area During
Marsh Bird and Yellow Rail Surveys, 2010 ...........................................................77
Figure 21 Breeding Bird Species of Concern in and Around the Local Study Area
During Breeding Bird Surveys, 2008 and 2010 .....................................................84
Figure 22 Amphibian Species of Concern Observed In and Around the Local Study
Area During Amphibian Surveys, 2008 Through 2010 ..........................................92
Golder Associates
Dover Commercial Project -x- Wildlife Baseline Report
December 2010
Figure 23 Designated Important Wildlife Areas In and Around the Local Study Area .........101
Figure 24 Wildlife Species of Concern Identified In and Around the Local Study Area
From FWMIS Data and Incidental Observations – Mammals and Boreal
Toads ...................................................................................................................103
Figure 25 Wildlife Species of Concern Identified In and Around the Local Study Area
From FWMIS Data and Incidental Observations – Birds .....................................104
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Common Names, Scientific Names and Status of Species Observed

Attachment B Potential and Observed Species of Concern
Attachment C Incidental Wildlife Sightings
Attachment D Winter Track Count Results
Attachment E Historic Wildlife Survey Results in the Region
Attachment F Photographic Bait Station Data
Attachment G Photographic Bait Station Photographs
Attachment H Breeding Bird Results in the Region
Golder Associates
Dover Commercial Project -1- Wildlife Baseline Report
December 2010
1 INTRODUCTION
Dover Operating Corp. (Dover OPCO) proposes to develop and operate a
commercial scheme for the recovery of bitumen from the McMurray Formation
approximately 95 km northwest of Fort McMurray, Alberta. The project is
located in Townships 92, 93, 94, 95 and 96, Ranges 15, 16, 17 and 18 West of
the Fourth Meridian (W4M) as shown on Figure 1. This scheme will include the
use of in situ Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) well pairs and two
on-site steam generation and oil/water treatment plants. The project is submitted
under the name of the Dover Commercial Project (the Project).
The Project is within a 170 section (43,500 ha) area of land called the Dover
Leases. The Project will be developed in five phases with each phase having
50,000 barrels per day (bpd) of bitumen capacity. Phase 1 will consist of the
Dover North Plant (DNP) and associated well pads and infrastructure generally
to the north of the plant. The Initial Surface Development Area (ISDA) will
include these Phase 1 facilities, the access corridor and the source water well
system.
Currently, 11 well pads are planned for the Phase 1 development. The access
corridor consists of a permanent 51-km-long access road and a 67-km-long utility
Right-of-Way (ROW) extending southeast from the DNP to other projects
currently proposed and under review by the regulators. The source water well
system includes 12 well pads and 20 km of infield access corridor consisting of
both a permanent road and a pipeline corridor. The majority of this access
corridor will also be used for SAGD well pad development as the Project
progresses.
Phase 2 will involve an expansion of the DNP to 100,000 bpd capacity and
associated SAGD well pads and infrastructure. An additional 140 well pads are
ultimately planned for the northern portion of the Project to support continued
development of Phases 1 and 2 of the Project.
Phases 3 to 5 will include construction and progressive 50,000 bpd expansions of

the Dover South Plant (DSP) along with production pads and associated
infrastructure. A total of 375 SAGD well pads are planned in the southern
portion of the Dover Leases.
Both the northern and southern portions of the Dover Leases will undergo
progressive development wherein SAGD well pads will be constructed, operated
for typically 8 to 12 years and then reclaimed. Materials recovered during
reclamation of pads will be re-used for new well pads to the extent possible. This
progressive development and reclamation will result in a likely scenario of 175
well pads being either in construction, operation, or reclamation at any one time
when the Project is in full production.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Baseline wildlife surveys were completed to support the Environmental Impact

Assessment (EIA) for the Project. Baseline information on wildlife, including
mammals, birds and amphibians, is required for the impact assessment,
mitigation and monitoring program planning.
This Wildlife Baseline Report presents wildlife data collected during baseline
surveys in the Terrestrial Resources Local Study Area (LSA) between 2008 and
2010. The following attachments contain pertinent information and should be
read in conjunction with this Wildlife Baseline Report:
 Attachment A: Common names, scientific names and status of species

observed;
 Attachment B: Potential and observed species of concern (species of
concern are discussed in detail in Section 7);
 Attachment C: Incidental wildlife sightings;
 Attachment D: Winter track count results;
 Attachment E: Historical wildlife survey results in the region;
 Attachment F: Photographic bait station data;
 Attachment G: Photographic bait station photographs; and
 Attachment H: Breeding bird results in the region.
1.1 STUDY OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the wildlife baseline surveys were to:
 identify wildlife resources that might be affected by the Project;

 identify key indicator species for the Project;
 provide information on presence, relative abundance, distribution,
general life history, habitat requirements and habitat use of wildlife
potentially affected by the Project, with a focus on key indicator species;
 determine whether any provincially or federally listed wildlife species
are present within the LSA;
 identify important wildlife habitats, including movement corridors, at
both regional and local scales; and
 describe, quantify and map all existing habitat disturbances in the LSA.
Golder Associates
December 2010
1.2 STUDY AREAS

The Terrestrial Resources Regional Study Area (RSA) and LSA were developed
with consideration of all terrestrial components (i.e., terrain and soils, terrestrial
vegetation, wetlands and forestry, wildlife and biodiversity) and are identical for
all Terrestrial Resources components of the baseline report.
1.2.1 Regional Study Area

The RSA was established to assess the effects of the Project for terrestrial
resources within the broader regional area (Figure 2). The RSA covers an area of
2,465,620 ha, and was defined using the following ecological parameters:
 ecodistrict or vegetation classification boundaries;

 significant geographic areas such as the Birch Mountain Uplands
located northwest of the Project;
 watershed and major watercourse boundaries; and
 defined woodland caribou habitat areas (e.g., the West Side of the
Athabasca River [WSAR] and Red Earth woodland caribou ranges).
The RSA is characterized by three distinctive zones that comprise different land
cover classes. The eastern portion of the RSA is bounded by the Athabasca
River, and is located primarily in the Central Mixedwood Subregion, with a small
portion of area in the north included in the Athabasca Plain Subregion.
Vegetation communities in the eastern area are characterized by closed canopy,
upland, deciduous aspen-balsam poplar stands with well to moderately drained
soils. The understorey is diverse with shrub and forb species including Canada
buffalo-berry, prickly rose, common rose, Labrador tea and low-bush cranberry.
The southern portion of the RSA is in the Central Mixedwood Subregion, and is
characterized by poorly drained wetlands dominated by wooded bog-poor fen,
wooded fen and non-treed wetlands. Plant community composition varies among
wetlands types. Treed bog-poor fens are acidic, nutrient poor and have lower
overall plant diversity; wooded fens have slightly higher pH values, and have
higher plant diversity, which may include tamarack in the tree layer. In bogs,
shrub composition is varied and may contain Labrador tea, black spruce and bog
cranberry. Fens have similar shrub species, but may include more willow and
dwarf birch. Other species include cloudberry, horsetail, three-leaved Solomon’s
seal, marsh marigold, sedges, peat moss and golden moss.
Golder Associates
Richardson
Lake Claire I.R.217
Lake
er
h Riv
Birc
250000 300000 350000 400000 450000 500000
LEGEND
Rg.8 Rg.7 Rg.6 Rg.5 TERRESTRIAL REGIONAL STUDY AREA
Rg.4 Rg.3 Rg.2 Rg.1 Rg.24 Rg.23 Rg.22 TERRESTRIAL LOCAL STUDY AREA
W5M Rg.21 Rg.20 Rg.19 Rg.18 Rg.17 Rg.16
6450000
6450000
Rg.15 Rg.14 Rg.13 Rg.12 Rg.11 Rg.10 Rg.9 Rg.8 Rg.7 COMMUNITY
W4M
INDIAN RESERVE
OPEN WATER
Tp.105
WATERCOURSE
Chipewyan ROAD
I.R.201F
Tp.104 RAILROAD
DISTURBED
er
Riv
EXISTING AND APPROVED URBAN
r
McI v o Tp.103
AND INDUSTRIAL DISTURBANCE
Chipewyan
I.R.201G AND INDUSTRIAL LINEAR DISTURBANCE
NATURAL SUBREGIONS
Tp.102
er
t Riv
ATHABASCA PLAINS
Burn Birc
hR er
e Riv
CENTRAL MIXEDWOOD
iver
uis
Lo Tp.101 BOREAL HIGHLANDS
6400000
6400000
PEACE-ATHABASCA DELTA
r
i ve
tt R
l io
El
Sand Tp.100
Lake
Big Island
Lake
Tp.99
Gardiner
Birch Mountains Wildland Lakes
S putin a
R iver P i erre Rive
M
Namur River
Ca
Tp.98
ikk
McClelland
Ri lu
I.R.174A
wa
ve m et Lake
r
P a n n y Ri r
Namur Lake
River
ve
r
I.R.174
Legend Namur
Lake Lake
Tp.97
Ta
Mu
r R ive k e g River
r
Fort McKay
s
iver
I.R.174C
ge R nkirk R
Lie Du iv e
Tp.96
r Jo
sl y n
6350000
6350000
Cr e ek
Tp.95
I:\CLIENTS\AOSC\09-1346-1011\mapping\mxd\Wildlife\Baseline\Fig2_RSA_TerrestrialResources.mxd
Fort McKay
r
Rive
r
Ells
Tp.94
k Rive
Fort McKay
Du
I.R.174
nki
rk
Ri v iver
epban
er
r
ve
R
Do
Ste
North
Ste
Chipewyan
ep
Lake
ba
Tp.92
n
ive
kR
r
Mink Lake REFERENCE
Athabasca River
Tp.91 ALBERTA DIGITAL BASE DATA OBTAINED FROM AltaLIS Ltd. (2004) © GOVERNMENT OF
ALBERTA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. HYDROGRAPHY AND FIRST NATIONS RESERVES
wyan River
ipe Birchwood
6300000
6300000
OBTAINED FROM IHS Energy Inc. COMMUNITIES © 2010 DMTI Spatial Inc. ALBERTA NATURAL
Cre
e
SUBREGION DATA OBTAINED FROM ALBERTA NATURAL HERITAGE INFORMATION
Ch
k CENTRE. PARKS OBTAINED FROM ALBERTA TOURISM, PARKS AND RECREATION.

Tp.90 DATUM: NAD83 PROJECTION: UTM ZONE 12
ay
MacK R iver
Fort McMurray
20 0 20
Tp.89
Clearwater
I.R.175 SCALE 1:850,000 KILOMETRES
Vandersteene Wo
Lake o
en
PROJECT
ho
d
us
River
Tp.88
e R ive DOVER COMMERCIAL PROJECT
sca
r Athaba
e River
TITLE
H o rs
Tp.87
R iv e r
TERRESTRIAL REGIONAL STUDY AREA
r
Wo Gregoire
Rive
Tp.86
ga
Teepee od Buffalo Lake

River iv e
Al
r
Lake R
Sh oal
Tr
k
PROJECT 09-1346-1011 FILE No.

oc
ut
6250000
Li v
Gr DESIGN AD 08 Feb. 2010 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0

o
Tp.85
eg
oir e River
FIGURE: 2
Ri
Gregoire Lake GIS BF 14 Oct. 2010

Bat Lake
ve r
I.R.176 CHECK VBS 28 Nov. 2010

250000 300000 350000 400000 450000 500000 REVIEW IGG 29 Nov. 2010
December 2010
Non-treed wetlands are common through the southern portion of the RSA. Tree
canopy is absent, and shrub communities are similar to those found in wooded
bogs and fens, but may also include alder. Sedges and other grasses are
abundant, along with horsetail, marsh-marigold, marsh cinquefoil and buckbean.
Bryophytes include brown moss, tufted moss, golden moss and peat moss.
Well-drained to imperfectly drained uplands present in the southern portion of

the RSA are characterized by stands of mixedwood aspen-white spruce. The tree
canopy may also contain balsam poplar, white birch or black spruce.
Understorey cover is diverse with species such as Labrador tea, twinflower,
prickly rose, low-bush cranberry, bunchberry and wild sarsaparilla. Stands
dominated by jack pine are present, but are less common and found on
well-drained sandy soils. The understorey in jack pine stands has low diversity,
and is typically dominated by Labrador tea, bog cranberry and blueberry.
The northern portion of the RSA consists of Upper and Lower Boreal Highlands
Subregions, and is characterized by stands of jack pine transitioning to jack
pine-black spruce in the north. Stands of mixedwood aspen-white spruce are
interspersed throughout. Where soils are well-drained, jack pine communities
are most common. These communities are characterized by a relatively open
canopy of jack pine and an understorey of blueberry, bog cranberry, common
bearberry and reindeer lichen. Jack pine-black spruce communities are found on
imperfectly drained soils, where understorey vegetation is composed of Labrador
tea and feather moss. Mixedwood aspen-white spruce stands typically occur in
nutrient-rich, moderately well-drained soils. Treed bog-poor fen wetlands are the
dominant wetlands in the northern portion of the RSA.
Landforms in the region are comprised predominantly of ground moraine with

terminal and ablation moraine features, interspersed with some areas of aeolian
dunes, sandy outwash plains and glaciolacustrine plains (NRC 2006).
Post-glacial organic deposits overlay glacial and post-glacial mineral deposits in
many areas. The medium-textured upland soils are predominantly Orthic Gray
Luvisols, and coarse-textured upland soils are usually Dystric, but sometimes
Eutric, Brunisols. Poorly drained areas are typically peatlands and the soils are
classified as Gleysolic or Organic soil orders. Many areas of Organic Cryosols
are found in the Boreal Highlands portions of the RSA, and Regosols are found
mostly on post-glacial stream channels or floodplains. Overall, the terrain has
low relief and a level to undulating surface in the Central Mixedwood portion of
the RSA, with hummocky and ridged features near and within the Boreal
Highlands.
Golder Associates
December 2010
1.2.2 Local Study Area
The LSA was established to assess the effects of the Project on Terrestrial
Resources at the local scale (Figure 3). The LSA is 62,026 ha in size. Project
activities will be contained within the Dover Leases, with the exception of
portions of the access corridors, drilling waste sumps and water supply wells near
the southern portion of the Project.
The LSA is based on a smoothed 500 m buffer around well pads, facilities and
Rights-of-Way (ROW). The 500 m buffer represents a zone where potential
indirect effects of the Project may occur (i.e., wildlife zones of influence, dust
effects and surface water effects).
The LSA is located in the Central Mixedwood and Upper and Lower Boreal
Highland Natural Subregions of the Boreal Forest Natural Region of Alberta
(NRC 2006). The Central Mixedwood Natural Subregion is the largest in the
province and is characterized by a cool, moist boreal climate conducive to the
growth of mixed aspen-spruce forests. The Central Mixedwood Subregion
contains a high proportion of bogs and fens in very poorly drained areas. Strong
and Leggat (1992) classified this as the Mid-Boreal Mixedwood Ecoregion of the
Boreal Ecoprovince. The Lower Boreal Highlands is the third largest Natural
Subregion in Alberta. The climate is cooler and somewhat moister than the
neighbouring Central Mixedwood Subregion. This Natural Subregion is a major
zone of hybridization between lodgepole pine and jackpine (NRC 2006).
The northern portion of the LSA, extending from the DNP northwards, is in the
Upper and Lower Boreal Highlands Subregions. Vegetation communities in the
Lower Boreal Highlands are characterized primarily by forested upland
communities dominated by mature aspen and white spruce stands, whereas
stands of mixedwood aspen and black spruce are more typical of the Upper
Highlands Subregion. Glacial flutes, or fluted terrain, are a defining feature of
this portion of the LSA, forming a complex of upland and wetlands communities
that drain toward the Ells River. Black spruce and aspen communities are
present in the upland portion of the flutes, while shrubby and wooded swamps,
wooded fens and marshes are characteristic of the wetlands and drainage
channels. Waterbodies are relatively common in this portion of the LSA, with a
complex of waterbodies found to the north and southwest of the DNP. A notable
part of this portion of the LSA contains regenerating burn communities, which
typically contain young jack pine stands. Wetlands are uncommon, with wooded
fens and wooded bogs the most prevalent wetlands types in the northernmost
portion of the LSA.
Golder Associates
I:\CLIENTS\AOSC\09-1346-1011\mapping\mxd\Wildlife\Baseline\Fig3_LSA_TerrestrialResources.mxd
400000 425000
Rg.19 Namur Lake

Legend Lake Rg.18 Rg.17 Rg.15 Rg.14
Namur Lake I.R. 174B
Tp.97 Rg.13
Rg.16
Jo
W4M
s
ly
n
C
re
ek
k
r ee
e aC
els
Ch
Tp.96
s
nd
Ell
la
s
gh
Ri
i
ve
lH s
r
a d
re an
Bo hl
r ig
pe H
6350000
6350000
U p e al
B or
er
w
Lo
Tp.95
d s
an
hl
ig
lH
rea
B o
Snip e C re ek
w er
Lo o d
d wo Tp.94
ixe
alM
r er
nt Ri v
Ce
s
Ell
Tp.93
6325000
6325000
Rabbit Lake D u n ki r
k Riv
er
ver
Ri
er
D ov
Tp.92
MacKay River
Bi
r ch
wo
o d
Tp.91
C
ree
k
River
MacKay
6300000
6300000
Du
nk
irk
Riv
er
Tp.90
Tp.89
400000 425000
LEGEND
5 0 5
NATURAL SUBREGION
TERRESTRIAL LOCAL STUDY AREA SCALE 1:225,000 KILOMETRES
INDIAN RESERVE
PROJECT
OPEN WATER
WATERCOURSE
DISTURBED
TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES
TITLE
LOCAL STUDY AREA

AND INDUSTRIAL LINEAR DISTURBANCE
REFERENCE PROJECT 09-1346-1011 FILE No.
DESIGN AD 12 Oct. 2010 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0
ALBERTA DIGITAL BASE DATA OBTAINED FROM AltaLIS Ltd. (2004) © GOVERNMENT OF ALBERTA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. HYDROGRAPHY DATA OBTAINED
FIGURE: 3
FROM GeoGratis, © DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ALBERTA NATURAL SUBREGION DATA OBTAINED FROM GIS BF 18 Oct. 2010
ALBERTA NATURAL HERITAGE INFORMATION CENTRE. FIRST NATIONS RESERVES OBTAINED FROM IHS Energy Inc. CHECK VBS 28 Nov. 2010
DATUM: NAD83 PROJECTION: UTM ZONE 12 REVIEW IGG 29 Nov. 2010
December 2010
The remainder of the LSA, located south of the DNP, is characterized by a

complex assemblage of aspen-dominated upland communities intermixed with a
diversity of peatland and mineral wetlands communities. This portion of the
LSA is located within the Central Mixedwood Subregion. Permafrost bogs are
found throughout this subregion, and include wooded bogs, wooded bogs with
collapse scars, wooded bogs with internal lawns and wooded fens with internal
lawns and islands of forested peat plateaus. Further to the south, fens and
swamps are more prevalent and found along the access corridor extending
southeast of the main body of LSA. Uncommon wetlands found in this portion
of the LSA include veneer bogs and a patterned fen.
The northern portion of the LSA is part of the Birch Mountains District of the
Birch Mountain Upland Section of the Lower Boreal Highlands Subregion, and
the southern portion is part of the MacKay Plain District of the Wabasca
Lowland Section of the Central Mixedwood Subregion (Pettapiece 1986;
NRC 2006). The LSA includes undulating and hummocky morainal landforms
and a veneer of glaciofluvial deposits over morainal material (Pettapiece 1986).
Organic materials overlay these morainal landforms in a large portion of the
LSA, with extensive areas of discontinuous permafrost. Characteristics of the
LSA physiographic region are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1 Local Study Area Physiographic Setting

Elevation
Region Section District Surficial Materials and Surface Expression
[masl]
Morainal (till) blanket / rolling rock with significant
Northern Alberta Birch Mountain Birch
occurrence of hummocky morainal (till) and steeply 350 to 800
Uplands Uplands Mountains
inclined undifferentiated material
Northern Alberta Wabasca MacKay Undulating morainal (till) with significant occurrence of
275 to 600
Lowlands Lowland Plain glaciolacustrine (inclined to undulating)
Source: Pettapiece (1986).
Relief is generally undulating throughout the southern portion of the LSA

(1 to 5 m height), and steeper slopes and rapid changes in elevation can occur on
morainal features, eskers and river valleys in the northern portion. The slopes in
the LSA range from 0.5 to 2% on the peatlands to 5 to 30% in the morainal areas,
to over 20% along some stream channels and river valleys.
Golder Associates
Dover Commercial Project - 10 - Wildlife Baseline Report
December 2010
2 METHODS
Baseline information pertaining to wildlife and their habitat originated from
various sources. Data was collected in and around the LSA from 2008 to 2010
on surveys specifically conducted for the Project. Habitat associations reported
for each species or species group were derived, to the extent possible, on the
cumulative regional dataset collected in support of other projects in the RSA.
Historical data regarding species of concern within the RSA were obtained
through the Fish and Wildlife Management Information System (FWMIS).
Finally, pertinent scientific literature was reviewed to provide additional context
and detail.
Information from previous studies, historical databases (i.e., FWMIS) and current
baseline surveys can help determine potential effects and mitigation measures for
the Project, and can aid in developing effective monitoring programs.
Methods used for the Project are generally consistent with those used in previous
EIAs completed in the Oil Sands Region. Environmental Impact Assessments
completed for other projects in the RSA provided data that were particularly
useful for comparative purposes. These projects include:
 MacKay Operating Corp. (MacKay OPCO) MacKay River Commercial

Project (AOSC 2009).
 Shell Canada Limited (Shell) Jackpine Mine Expansion and Pierre River
Mine Project (Shell 2007);
 Deer Creek Energy Limited (Deer Creek Energy) Joslyn North Mine
Project (Deer Creek Energy 2006).
 Canadian Natural Resources Limited (Canadian Natural) Horizon Oil
Sands Project (Canadian Natural 2002).
 Southern Pacific Resource Corporation (STP) McKay SAGD Project
(Southern Pacific 2009).
 Sunshine Oil Sands Ltd. (Sunshine) West Ells SAGD Project
(Sunshine 2010).
2.1 WILDLIFE BASELINE SURVEYS

Baseline surveys for wildlife were conducted in and around the LSA to collect
site-specific information on wildlife (Table 2). These surveys cover a broad
range of wildlife guilds and species, with a focus on species of concern (defined
in Section 2.3).
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table 2 Wildlife Surveys Conducted In and Around the Local Study Area
# Survey Sites / Survey
Survey Type Survey Date(s) Weather Conditions
Length of Transects Locations
March 4 and 5, 2008 241 km (2008),
ungulate aerial February 10 and 11, 2009 809 km (2009), High visibility, 100% snow cover, low winds. Temperatures -12 to -8°C. Figure 4
2
February 13 to 15, 2010 831 km (2010)
March 6 and 7, 2008 12 km of transects March: temperatures ranged from -16 to -8°C, February: temperature
winter track ranged from -23 to -8°C.
February 12 to 18, 2009 29.1 km of transects Figure 5
counts January and February: temperatures ranged from -27 to -15°C, fair to
January 31 and February 3, 2010 79.3 km of transects good snow conditions.
February 9 to March 17, 2010 20 cameras - 36 days
photographic bait May 17 to June 12, 2010 20 cameras - 26 days
Variable. Figure 6
stations July 3 to July 31, 2010 20 cameras - 28 days
September 4 to October 5, 2010 20 cameras - 32 days
757 km of
beaver aerial August 6 to 9, 2008 watercourses and Good visibility, low winds. Figure 7
shoreline
July 31 to August 4, 2008
30 mist nets Temperatures ranged from 4 to 26°C with light or no wind. Skies ranged
bats July 25 to 27 and 30 to 31, 2009 Figure 18
66 detector plots from clear to overcast.
July 21 to 23, 2010
Temperatures ranged from -6 to 9°C. Skies ranged from clear to overcast,
owl call playback April 13 to 17, 2010 37 plots Figure 19
with generally light winds.
marsh bird call Temperatures ranged from 0 to 13°C, with variable cloudiness and light
June 2 to 5, 2010 22 plots Figure 10
playback winds.
Temperatures ranged from 1 to 15.5°C, with variable cloudiness and light
yellow rail July 7 and 8, 2010 25 plots Figure 10
winds.
June 19 to 27, 2008 194 plots
breeding bird Temperature ranged from 4 to 18°C with light winds. Figure 11
June 9 to 11, 2010 42 plots
June 2 to 4 and 6, 2008 May: temperatures ranged from 1 to 18°C, variable cloud cover with light
amphibian call May 28 to 31, 2009 202 plots winds. June: temperatures ranged from 4 to 18°C, clear skies and light Figure 12
June 2, 4 and 5, 2010 winds.
Golder Associates
December 2010
2.1.1 Ungulate Aerial Survey

Aerial surveys were conducted to assess ungulate populations (i.e., woodland
caribou, moose and deer) in and around the LSA during March 4 to 5, 2008,
February 10 to 11 2009 and February 13 to 15, 2010. The surveys were
conducted by helicopter on days when visibility was high, 100% snow cover was
present, and winds were low to moderate (Gasaway et al. 1986; Quayle et al.
2001). Surveys were flown at speeds between 80 and 100 km/hr approximately
100 m above the ground.
Survey transects differed among years. In 2008, east-west survey transects were
oriented parallel to each other and 2 km apart. In 2009, parallel east-west
transects were flown 1.5 km apart. In 2010 surveys followed the methodology
presented by Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD 2010) and were
oriented north-south and spaced 400m apart (Figure 4). Spacing transects at
400m is recommended for moose in the Ungulate Aerial Survey Protocol Manual
(ASRD 2010), and is also considered appropriate for caribou (Powell 2010a,
pers. comm.).
Pilots used a Global Positioning System (GPS) to follow survey lines. Surveys
were conducted by three observers; one navigator/observer in the front passenger
seat and two full-time observers in the back seat of the helicopter. Each observer
recorded ungulates detected within a specified distance of the transect line. In
2008 and 2009, up to 800m on either side of each transect were surveyed.
During 2010, full time observers recorded all ungulates observed within 200 m of
the transect line on the side of the helicopter they were sitting on, providing a
combined observation band of 400 m along the transect (ASRD 2010).
During all surveys, locations of caribou, moose and deer, were recorded on a
1:45,000 orthophotographic map and coordinates were collected using a
handheld GPS unit. For each sighting, the observer recorded the time, sex (if
possible), age (if possible), location and habitat type by ecosite phase
(Beckingham and Archibald 1996) or wetlands type (Halsey et al. 2003). The
survey team also recorded the location of feeding craters and landed at areas with
fresh caribou sign to confirm caribou activity. Incidental wildlife sightings,
including carnivores, raptors, birds and wildlife tracks were recorded. Weather
conditions, including temperature, snow conditions, cloud cover and visibility
were noted. The 2008 and 2009 surveys covered an extent much larger than the
LSA, and wildlife observations outside of the LSA were included in the baseline
report only if they occurred within 10 km of the LSA boundary.
Golder Associates
I:\CLIENTS\AOSC\09-1346-1011\mapping\mxd\Wildlife\Baseline\Fig4_UngulateAerialSurveyCoverage.mxd
400000 425000
Rg.16
Rg.19 Legend Lake Namur Lake
Rg.18 Rg.17 Rg.15 Rg.14
Namur Lake I.R. 174B Tp.97 Rg.13
W4M
Jo
s
ly
n
C
re
e
eek
k
Cr
ea
els
Ch
Tp.96
Ell
sR
ive
r
6350000
6350000
Tp.95
Sni p e Cre ek
Tp.94
er
Riv
Ells
Tp.93
6325000
6325000
Rabbit Lake D u n kir
k Riv
er
ver
Ri
er
D ov
Tp.92
MacKay River
Bir
ch
wo
o d
Tp.91
Cr
eek
River
MacKay
6300000
6300000
Wh
Du isk
nk ey
irk
Riv
er
Tp.90
Round La
Tp.89
400000 425000
LEGEND
10 0 10
TERRESTRIAL LOCAL STUDY AREA UNGULATE AERIAL TRANSECT
INDIAN RESERVE 2008 SCALE 1:250,000 KILOMETRES
OPEN WATER 2009
PROJECT
WATERCOURSE 2010
DISTURBED DOVER COMMERCIAL PROJECT
UNGULATE AERIAL SURVEY TRANSECTS

TITLE
IN AND AROUND THE LOCAL STUDY AREA,
2008 THROUGH 2010
REFERENCE
DESIGN BS 13 Oct. 2010 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0
ALBERTA DIGITAL BASE DATA OBTAINED FROM AltaLIS Ltd. (2004) © GOVERNMENT OF ALBERTA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
FIGURE: 4
HYDROGRAPHY DATA OBTAINED FROM GeoGratis, © DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. GIS JH 12 Nov. 2010
FIRST NATIONS RESERVES OBTAINED FROM IHS Energy Inc. CHECK VBS 28 Nov. 2010
December 2010
Ungulate densities were estimated within the LSA using 2010 survey data.
Stratification and statistical approaches for sampling designs recommended in the
Ungulate Aerial Survey Protocol Manual (ASRD 2010) were unnecessary for
2010 surveys because an area of 831 km2, which encompassed the majority of the
LSA, was censused (Figure 4). In many cases, however, a proportion of animals
within a survey area may go undetected, especially where dense vegetative cover
is present. Consequently, estimates of ungulate density often require correction
for detection bias that varies by habitat type (Allen 2005). Sightability correction
models to account for unobserved ungulates have not previously been developed
in the Oil Sands Region (Powell 2010a, pers. comm.).
A sightability correction factor was calculated in 2010 by surveying three 2 km2

grids in areas that were of moderate ungulate density and were representative of
habitat sightability conditions within the Dover Leases. A regular-intensity pass
was first conducted using 2 km north-south transects spaced 400 m apart, with
observers looking out 200 m on either side for 100% coverage of the area. A
high-intensity pass was then conducted along 2 km east-west transects spaced
200 m apart with observers sighting 100 m out on either side for 100% coverage
of the area. The difference in observations per species between the regular- and
high-intensity passes provided a species and habitat-specific sightability
correction factor. This approach to estimating sightability assumes that no
ungulates are missed during the high-intensity pass.
The first 2 km2 grid flown was generally open habitat consisting of a mix of
wooded fen (FTNN), shrubby fen (FONS), wooded bog (BTNN) and shrubby
swamp (SONS) wetlands types, where a moderate density of moose was
observed during the survey period. The regular-intensity (north-south) and
high-intensity (east-west) transects yielded a total of 6 moose observations each
for a sightability correction factor of 1.0 for moose in open habitat. This result is
consistent with the notion that moose counts often do not require sightability
correction because of the high visibility of the species in open habitats (Powell
2010a, pers. comm.).
The second 2 km2 grid flown was open habitat consisting mainly of wooded fen
(FTNN) habitat where caribou had been observed during the survey period. The
regular (north-south) and high (east-west) intensity transects yielded a total of
6 caribou observations each for a sightability correction factor of 1.0 for caribou
in open habitat. Although two additional caribou were observed during the
high-intensity transects, those animals were observed outside the survey area
during the regular-intensity transects, and observed running into the area during
the high-intensity transects. A correction factor of 1.0 is below the range of the
1.1 to 1.2 correction factor that was recommended as appropriate for deer and
caribou (Powell 2010a, pers. comm.). However, given the excellent visibility
Golder Associates
December 2010
due to weather and vegetation conditions, a sightability correction factor of 1.0

for caribou in open habitat was deemed appropriate.
The third 2 km2 grid was generally closed habitat that included low-bush
cranberry aspen (d1), Labrador tea-subhygric black spruce-jack pine (g1),
wooded bog (BTNN), shrubby swamp (SONS) and wooded swamp (STNN)
ecosite phases and wetlands types. No ungulates were observed during either the
regular- or high-intensity passes. This result suggests that either no ungulates
were present within the 2 km2 at that time, or the tree cover was too dense for
positive observations (i.e., the assumption that all ungulates were observed if
present during the high-intensity pass probably did not hold in closed forests). A
sightability correction factor could not be established for closed habitat in the
LSA.
No correction factor was applied to moose or woodland caribou observations.

Density was calculated by dividing the population estimate (i.e., number of
observed animals multiplied by the correction factor) by the total area surveyed.
The calculated densities must be considered minimums because ungulates may
have been present but unobserved in forested, closed habitats.
Ungulate cow:calf ratios can provide useful information about calf survival and
population trajectory (Harris et al. 2008). A cow:calf productivity ratio was
therefore calculated for each ungulate species, if sufficient data on age-sex class
of individuals were available.
2.1.2 Winter Track Count Survey
Objectives of the winter track count survey were to determine the distribution,
habitat use and relative abundance of ungulates and small and medium-sized
carnivores within the LSA. Three sessions of winter track count surveys were
conducted (one each in March 2008, February 2009, and January/February
2010). Surveys consisting of triangular transects measuring either 1,500 m
(n = 7) or 2,000 m (n = 18) a side were conducted in and around the LSA to
achieve a relatively unbiased sampling of habitat types while providing good
overall coverage of the area (Figure 5). Five triangles were incompletely
surveyed, resulting in 120.4 linear kilometres of transects surveyed in total.
Golder Associates
I:\CLIENTS\AOSC\09-1346-1011\mapping\mxd\Wildlife\Baseline\Fig5_WinterTrackTransect_Locations .mxd
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
Rg.19 Rg.18 Rg.17 Rg.16

Namur Lake Rg.15 Rg.14
Legend Lake Tp.97 Rg.13
W4M
Jo
s
6360000
6360000
ly
n
C
re
e
k
k
ree
aC
e lse
Ch
Tp.96
E ll
sR
iv e
r
6350000
6350000
Tp.95
6340000
6340000
Sni p e C re ek
Tp.94
r
iv e
sR
E ll
6330000
6330000
Tp.93

k Riv
er
ver
Ri
er
ov
6320000
6320000
D
Tp.92
MacKay River
6310000
Bi
rch
6310000
wo
od Tp.91
C
r ee
k
River
MacKay
6300000
6300000
Wh
Du i sk
nk ey
ir k
Ri v
er
Tp.90
Round
6290000
6290000
Tp.89
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000

LEGEND
10 0 10
TERRESTRIAL LOCAL STUDY AREA WINTER TRACK TRANSECT
INDIAN RESERVE SCALE 1:250,000 KILOMETRES
OPEN WATER
PROJECT
WATERCOURSE
WINTER TRACK TRANSECT LOCATIONS
TITLE

2008 THROUGH 2010

REFERENCE
FIGURE: 5
GIS VR 26 Oct. 2010
HYDROGRAPHY DATA OBTAINED FROM GeoGratis, © DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
December 2010
Surveys were timed to occur after significant snowfall (i.e., a minimum snowfall
of 2 cm). Each transect was walked by two observers working together to locate
and identify tracks. A GPS waypoint was taken at intersection locations and all
additional tracks occurring within 10 to 25 m were assigned to that waypoint.
Where more than one individual of a given species crossed the transect, attempts
were made to determine the size of the group. If the number of individuals could
not be determined, the observation was recorded as one “trail”, which was
considered three crossings for the purpose of statistical analysis. In situations
where an area was heavily used (i.e., multiple trails), a “network” was recorded
for a given 10 m segment of transect, and was considered as seven crossings for
the purpose of statistical analysis.
Information on habitat type and structure was recorded along transects. Snow
thickness and hardness measurements were recorded to provide information on
snow conditions during surveys. Vegetation communities encountered were
classified and recorded according to the Field Guide to Ecosites of Northern
Alberta (Beckingham and Archibald 1996) for terrestrial communities and
Alberta Wetlands Inventory Standards (Halsey et al. 2003) for wetlands types.
Ice, rivers, lakes and open water (WONN) habitats were reported together as
“ice”. Areas of anthropogenic (i.e., man-made) disturbance were classified as
either “linear disturbance” (e.g., roads, seismic cutlines and ROW) or “non-linear
disturbance” (e.g., clearcuts with no identified successional vegetation and
cleared well pads). This distinction is important because wildlife may use linear
and non-linear disturbances differently. For example, some carnivores
(e.g., wolves, coyotes) travel on compacted linear disturbances to increase
efficiency when searching for prey (James and Stewart-Smith 2000).
Winter track data were analyzed in terms of the number of tracks per species
per km-day which was calculated as follows:
Tracks per km-day = number of tracks observed

distance [km] * time since last snowfall [days]
A total of 563.1 km-days were sampled in 22 vegetation communities and two

disturbance types in and around the LSA (Table 3). Tracking surveys were
designed to be representative of the proportional distribution of ecosite phases
and wetlands types in and around the LSA. Survey conditions are presented in
Table 2.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table 3 Vegetation Types Sampled During the Winter Track Count Surveys In
and Around the Local Study Area, 2008, 2009 and 2010
(a) km-Days Tracking Effort
Vegetation Types
Sampled [%]
a1 lichen jack pine 9.7 1.9
b1 blueberry jackpine-aspen 19.9 2.6
b2 blueberry aspen (white birch) 0.2 0.1
b3 blueberry aspen-white spruce 17.6 3.4
b4 blueberry white spruce-jack pine 7.5 1.0
c1 Labrador tea–mesic jack pine-black spruce 35.5 6.5
d1 low-bush cranberry aspen 3.8 1.6
d2 low-bush cranberry aspen-white spruce 19.1 6.6
d3 low-bush cranberry white spruce 8.7 2.5
e1 dogwood balsam poplar-aspen 0.1 0.1
e2 dogwood balsam poplar-white spruce 1.0 0.5
e3 dogwood white spruce 0.5 0.3
g1 Labrador tea–subhygric black spruce-jack pine 51.5 7.7
h1 Labrador tea/horesetail white spruce-black spruce 20.8 2.9
subtotal 196.0 37.5
BONS shrubby bog 43.7 8.2
BTNN wooded bog 193.8 30.1
FONG graminoid fen 1.3 0.3
FONS shrubby fen 26.0 4.2
FTNN wooded fen 91.8 14.0
SONS shrubby swamp 0.6 0.4
STNN wooded swamp 3.0 1.8
subtotal 360.3 58.9
BU burn 5.2 2.8
subtotal 5.2 2.8
(b)
dis-l disturbed-linear 0.8 0.4
(c)
dis-nl disturbed-non-linear 0.9 0.5
subtotal 1.7 0.9
Total 563.1 100.0
(a)
Beckingham and Archibald (1996) and Halsey et al. (2003).
(b)
Disturbed-linear types include seismic lines, cutlines and roads.
(c)
Disturbed-non-linear types include well pads.
Note: Some numbers are rounded for presentation purposes. Therefore, it may appear that the totals
do not equal the sum of the individual values.
2.1.3 Photographic Bait Stations

The primary objective of the photographic bait station survey was to determine
presence and distribution of wide-ranging, elusive carnivores (e.g., wolves,
wolverines, fishers, black bears and Canada lynx). This sampling approach is
effective because the bait attracts carnivores to the camera so that pictures can be
taken. Photographic bait stations also provide presence data for smaller
carnivores including weasels and martens that are attracted to the bait, and they
provide information about ungulates and birds incidentally.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Skinned beaver carcasses purchased from local trappers were used as bait. The
carcasses were cut into two pieces and a half a beaver was deployed at each bait
station in a closed bucket with small holes drilled on the side to release scent.
Buckets were suspended at least 3 m off the ground on a wire hung between two
large-diameter trees separated by 5 to 8 m. Animals could investigate, but not
retrieve, bait buckets suspended in this manner.
RECONYX® digital cameras triggered by an infrared motion detector were used

to photograph wildlife at bait stations. Infrared illuminators permitted nocturnal
photographs to be taken without a flash, reducing the effect of photography on
animal behaviour (RECONYX® 2004, internet site). Cameras were deployed
with a minimum 512 kb compact flash memory card capable of storing
approximately 10,000 images. Cameras were set so that there was no first
picture delay, trigger sensitivity was high, and two pictures were taken one
second apart each time a camera was triggered. All components of the cameras
were contained within a single housing unit.
Each camera was fastened to a tree about 1 m above the ground facing the baited
bucket using bungee cords and a lock. The camera was angled so that wildlife
approaching the bucket would be photographed. Objects that potentially
obscured the photograph (i.e., grass or branches) were removed. A function test
was performed on each camera before locking it.
Bait stations were distributed in a manner designed to capture most wide-ranging

carnivores accessing the LSA (Figure 6). Fishers are an important wildlife
species in northeastern Alberta (Traditional Land Use Baseline Report, included
on a CD with this Application [Section 3.2.2.4]) and have among the smallest
home ranges of the wide-ranging carnivores that occur there, typically
encompassing 10 to 20 km² (Fuller et al. 2001). Consequently, photographic bait
stations were placed about 4.5 km apart (i.e., one per 15 km2 on average) to
provide sufficient sampling intensity to potentially detect most fishers present in
the LSA. This sampling intensity should be sufficient to detect other large
carnivores that may access the LSA during the 26 to 36 day sampling window in
each of the winter, spring, and summer sampling periods (Table 2). Cameras and
bait buckets were retrieved between sampling periods. However, because the
same sites were used during all four seasons, the wiring system used to secure
bait buckets was left in place between sessions.
Golder Associates
I:\CLIENTS\AOSC\09-1346-1011\mapping\mxd\Wildlife\Baseline\Fig6_BaitStation_Locations .mxd
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
Rg.19 Rg.18 Rg.17 Rg.16

W4M
Jo
s
6360000
6360000
ly
n
C
re
e
k
k
ree
e aC
els
Ch
Tp.96
E ll
sR
iv e
r
6350000
6350000
Tp.95
6340000
6340000
Sni p e C re ek
Tp.94
r
iv e
sR
E ll
6330000
6330000
Tp.93

k Riv
er
iv e r
rR
ve
6320000
6320000
Do
Tp.92
MacKay River
6310000
Bi
r ch
6310000
wo
od Tp.91
C
r ee
k
River
MacKay
6300000
6300000
Wh
Du isk
nk
ir k
Ri v
er
Tp.90
Round Lake
6290000
6290000
Tp.89
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000

LEGEND
10 0 10
TERRESTRIAL LOCAL STUDY AREA PHOTOGRAPHIC BAIT STATION
INDIAN RESERVE 2.2 km BUFFER AROUND SCALE 1:250,000 KILOMETRES
PHOTOGRAPHIC BAIT STATION
OPEN WATER
PROJECT
WATERCOURSE
TITLE
LOCATIONS IN AND AROUND
THE LOCAL STUDY AREA, 2010
REFERENCE
FIGURE: 6
GIS JH 12 Nov. 2010
December 2010
2.1.3.1 Data Analysis

Results for remote camera deployments were divided by species and season. For
each species photographed, a photo rate index and the proportion of cameras with
at least one photograph of that species were calculated. The photo rate index is
the number of total photos or detections of a given species divided by the camera
station sampling effort in days (i.e., # photos/day). The numbers of photos of
each species per camera was determined by counting the number of separate
detections of an identified wildlife species. The average number of days to first
photograph was calculated following the methods outlined by Moruzzi et al.
(2002). This index allows inferences to be made regarding the likelihood that a
carnivore occupies the habitat in which it is photographed. Carnivores detected
shortly after camera set-up are more likely occupying the habitat whereas
carnivores detected after longer periods of time are more likely being attracted by
the bait. If more than one station identified a particular species, the number of
days to first photo was averaged between all station results and a range was also
determined.
2.1.4 Beaver Survey

An aerial survey for beaver was conducted from August 6 to 9, 2008 to
determine beaver distribution, abundance, and habitat associations along
watercourses in and around the LSA (AOSC 2009, Volume 4, Appendix 11A).
During the survey, 757 km of transects in and around the LSA were flown along
riparian areas and shorelines (AOSC 2009, Volume 4, Appendix 11A; Figure 7).
The survey was conducted by three observers in a helicopter travelling at speeds
of 80 to 100 km/hr, approximately 100 m above the ground. Observers looked
for beavers, their lodges (active and inactive), food caches and dams. Each
observation was assigned to one of these four categories, and coordinates were
obtained using a GPS unit.
Golder Associates
I:\CLIENTS\AOSC\09-1346-1011\mapping\mxd\Wildlife\Baseline\Fig7_AerialBeaverSurveyRoutes .mxd
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000
Rg.16
Rg.19 Legend Lake Rg.18 Rg.17 Namur Lake Rg.15 Rg.14
Tp.97 Rg.13
Namur Lake I.R. 174B W4M
Jo
s
6360000
6360000
ly
n
C
re
e
k
k
ree
aC
e lse
Ch
Tp.96
E ll
sR
iv e
r
6350000
6350000
Tp.95
6340000
6340000
Sni p e C re ek
Tp.94
r
iv e
sR
E ll
6330000
6330000
Tp.93

k Riv
er
ver
r Ri
ve
6320000
6320000
Do
Tp.92
MacKay River
6310000
6310000
Bi
rch
wo
od Tp.91
C
r ee
k
River
MacKay
6300000
6300000
Du
nk
ir k
Ri v
er
Tp.90
Round
6290000
6290000
Tp.89
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000

LEGEND
10 0 10
TERRESTRIAL LOCAL STUDY AREA AERIAL SURVEY ROUTE
OPEN WATER
PROJECT
WATERCOURSE
DISTURBED
AERIAL SURVEY ROUTES FOR

TITLE
EXISTING AND APPROVED URBAN BEAVER IN AND AROUND THE
LOCAL STUDY AREA, 2008
REFERENCE
FIGURE: 7
December 2010
2.1.5 Bat Surveys
Bat surveys were conducted to describe species occurrence, relative activity and
habitat preferences of bats in and around the LSA (Figure 8). The presence of
bats was documented by capture in mist nets and by recording echolocation calls
(i.e., number of passes and feeding buzzes).
Bat surveys were conducted when young-of-the-year were likely to be flying, but
before their migration to hibernacula occurred (e.g., July to early August).
Capture
Mist nets were set according to recognized guidelines (Vonhof and Hobson
2001) in habitats where capture was likely (e.g., over small streams or channels,
beaver ponds and dams, and roads or trails surrounded by dense vegetation and
suitable old-growth forest). Mist nets were opened after sunset to prevent the
capture of birds. Nets were closed between 1:30 a.m. and 5:00 a.m., depending
on bat activity and weather conditions. Nets were frequently checked and
captured bats were quickly removed from the nets to reduce the likelihood of
injury.
Mist net hours were calculated based on the number of active hours per 6-m-wide
net. For example, a single 6-m-wide net open for two hours equals two mist net
hours, or a double-high 6-m-wide net open for two hours equals four mist net
hours. Captured bats were identified to species and age, sex, forearm length,
weight and reproductive condition was recorded.
Ultrasonic Detection
Bat activity (i.e., passes and feeding buzzes) was measured in and around the
LSA using an Anabat II (with Compact Flash Zero Crossings Analysis Interface
Module [CF ZCAIM]) and SD1 detectors (Titley Electronics, Ballina, Australia).
All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) were used to travel existing roads, trails and
seismic lines in and around the LSA to access survey locations. Two detector
survey methods were used: all-night detectors and point counts. All-night
detectors were set up between 7:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m., and retrieved between
4:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.
Golder Associates
I:\CLIENTS\AOSC\09-1346-1011\mapping\mxd\Wildlife\Baseline\Fig8_Bat_Survey_Locations .mxd
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
Rg.19 Rg.18 Rg.17 Rg.16

W4M
Jo
s
6360000
6360000
ly
n
C
re
e
k
k
ree
aC
e lse
Ch
Tp.96
E ll
sR
iv e
r
6350000
6350000
Tp.95
6340000
6340000
Sni p e C re ek
Tp.94
r
iv e
sR
E ll
6330000
6330000
Tp.93

k Riv
er
ver
Ri
er
ov
6320000
6320000
D
Tp.92
MacKay River
6310000
Bi
rch
6310000
wo
od Tp.91
C
r ee
k
River
MacKay
6300000
6300000
Wh
Du i sk
nk ey
ir k
Ri v
er
Tp.90
Round La
6290000
6290000
Tp.89
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000

LEGEND
10 0 10
TERRESTRIAL LOCAL STUDY AREA BAT CAPTURE LOCATION
INDIAN RESERVE BAT DETECTOR LOCATION SCALE 1:250,000 KILOMETRES
OPEN WATER
PROJECT
WATERCOURSE
BAT SURVEY LOCATIONS IN AND
TITLE
AROUND THE LOCAL STUDY AREA,

2008 THROUGH 2010

REFERENCE
FIGURE: 8
GIS JH 15 Oct. 2010
December 2010
Point count locations were established at least 500 m apart to minimize

encountering the same bats twice. Each site visit consisted of a five-minute
detection period. An attempt was made to visit each site twice to capture
variation in activity throughout the night. Surveying started 30 minutes after
sunset. Time, temperature and wind conditions were recorded at each survey
location. During each five-minute sampling period the detector was slowly
rotated 360 degrees while keeping the microphone pointed overhead. The
position was varied as it rotated, but as soon as a bat was detected the
microphone was held stationary to avoid recording the same bat twice. Ten
seconds after the bat passed, rotation of the microphone resumed.
Call Analysis
When bats echolocate, they produce a series of vocalizations known as calls. A
sequence of calls is a single pass. Each pass can be divided into three phases. As
a bat explores a foraging area, the calls are longer in duration and the time
between calls is longer, termed the “search phase”. If a bat detects an object, the
calls enter the “approach phase,” where calls are produced quickly to provide the
bat with more information about the object. If the object is suitable prey, a third
phase occurs. The bat produces a “terminal feeding buzz,” a rapid burst of
echolocation calls to provide precise information about the insect.
The number of passes detected per unit time provides an index of relative bat
activity for plot locations. Similarly, the number of feeding buzzes detected is
used as a relative measure of foraging activity at plot locations (Griffin et al.
1960).
Echolocation call characteristics were used to identify bat species where possible
using AnaLookW version 3.7j (Corben 2009). To identify bat species, several
variables of search phase calls are measured, including maximum frequency
(i.e., the highest frequency of a call), minimum frequency (i.e., the lowest
frequency of a call), duration and slope. From these parameters, simple slope is
calculated as the difference between the minimum and maximum frequency
divided by the duration. The characteristic slope of the call is also calculated,
which is the slope of the flattest part or the body of the call.
Larger bat species, including hoary bats, silver-haired bats and big brown bats
produce echolocation calls that have an upper limit of 25 kHz. Big brown and
silver-haired bat calls are typically too similar to be distinguished from each
other but can be distinguished from other species. These calls can be
distinguished from smaller species, such as red bats and bats in the Myotis genus
(i.e., little brown bat, northern long-eared bat) whose echolocation calls typically
have a characteristic frequency of around 35 to 40 kHz. Effort was made to
distinguish Myotis species’ calls although their calls have similar characteristics
Golder Associates
December 2010
in the same frequency range and are therefore difficult to separate. Due to the
conservation status of M. septentrionalis, if a pass did not clearly belong to a
long-eared bat, this pass was placed into the M. lucifugus category; as such the
long-eared category M. septentrionalis may be an underestimate of the actual
number of passes, and M. lucifugus may be an over-estimate. Hoary and red bats
each have unique call features that can be used to identify them separately.
The Anabat analysis categories used for the Project are presented in Table 4.
When calls were not easily placed into a distinct category, other call
characteristics were analyzed, such as shape of call, pattern of calls in the pass,
immediately adjacent bat passes and time between calls. These decisions were
made on a pass-by-pass case. Other considerations during analysis included the
number of bats recorded in a given pass, and which harmonic(s) were recorded.
In the analysis, only search phase calls were analyzed; however, feeding buzzes
were recognized and noted where clear; where unclear, feeding buzzes were
identified by listening to the file.
Table 4 Anabat Analysis Categories

Species/Species Group Species Common Names
Lasionycteris noctivigans L. noctivigans silver-haired
Lasiurus cinereus L. cinereus hoary
Lasiurus borealis L. borealis red
Myotis lucifugus M. lucifugus little brown
Myotis septentrionalis M. septentrionalis northern long-eared
Myotis lucifugus/Myotis septentrionalis M. lucifugus and M. septentrionalis little brown/northern long-eared
Eptesicus fuscus/
E. fuscus/L. noctivigans big brown/silver-haired
Lasionycteris noctivigans
M. lucifugius, M. septentrionalis,
high-frequency bats little brown, northern long-eared, red
L. borealis
low-frequency bats E. fuscus,L. noctivigans, L. cinereus big brown, silver-haired, hoary
Bat passes were defined as two or more bat calls. Each pass is separated by at
least five seconds. However, sometimes the pass is very long exceeding the
15-second capacity of the file and a new file is started even though there is no
five-second delay between calls. In these cases, succeeding files were assumed to
be the same bat and were not counted as a new pass.
Call characteristics were compared to reference calls from the literature

(Adams 2003), from a pre-existing library of echolocation passes obtained from
the Anabat System Manual (Corben and O’Farrell 1999) updated in 2009, and a
study conducted in similar habitat and at similar latitude (Patriquin 2001). Local
reference calls were used where possible to minimize potential differences in
Golder Associates
December 2010
calls due to geographic variation. A set of criteria established for discriminating

between background noise and calls was used for consistent, accurate
measurement of call variables (Patriquin 2001) and species assignment.
2.1.6 Nocturnal Owl Call Survey

Nocturnal owl call surveys (i.e., owl call playback) were conducted in the LSA to
provide information on owl presence, distribution and relative abundance.
Nocturnal owl call surveys consisted of broadcasting a series of recorded owl
calls using a loudspeaker in an attempt to elicit responses. This type of survey is
the best known method to detect most species of owls in extensively wooded
areas, and is especially effective during the breeding season (Mosher et al. 1990;
RIC 2001; Smith 1987; Takats and Holroyd 1997; Takats et al. 2001).
Nocturnal owl call surveys were conducted at 37 plots during April 13

to 17, 2010 (Figure 9). Plots were located at least 1,500 m apart to maximize
coverage of the survey area and to avoid overlap of owl territories (Takats et al.
2001). Surveys began one half hour after sunset. At each survey plot, observers
remained silent for two minutes to allow the initial disturbance to subside and to
listen for owls that may be spontaneously calling. A Johnny Stewart digital
wildlife caller was used to broadcast calls beginning immediately after the
two-minute silence. A pattern of 20 seconds of calling followed by one minute
of silence continued until all owl species playbacks were completed. The calls of
less aggressive owl species were played first to account for aversion of less
aggressive owl species towards more aggressive ones (Beck and Beck 1988;
Takats et al. 2001). Calls were obtained from the Alberta Owl Monitoring
Program and were broadcast for three species in the following order: boreal owl,
great grey owl and barred owl.
Presence of an owl species at a sampling plot was established if their distinctive

vocalizations were heard. Direction and approximate distance of the calling owl
from the survey location were recorded. Bearings and distances were used to
estimate the position of calling owls. Estimated locations were then intersected
with vegetation land-cover maps in a Geographic Information System (GIS) to
identify the ecosite phase or wetlands type associated with each owl observation.
Information recorded at each playback location included date, arrival/departure

times, GPS location, dominant vegetation, and ecosite phase or wetlands type.
Owl call detection is affected by environmental conditions (Morrell et al. 1991),
and therefore air temperature, wind speed, cloud cover and precipitation were
recorded at each plot. Surveys were discontinued if weather conditions were
judged to interfere with owl call behaviour or the ability of surveyors to detect
calls. Weather was deemed unacceptable if the winds exceeded 20 km/hr or if it
was raining or snowing.
Golder Associates
I:\CLIENTS\AOSC\09-1346-1011\mapping\mxd\Wildlife\Baseline\Fig9_Owls.mxd
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
Rg.16
Rg.18 Rg.17 Rg.15 Rg.14
Tp.97 Rg.13
W4M
Jo
s
6360000
6360000
ly
n
C
re
e
k
k
C r ee
ea
els
Ch
Tp.96
Ell
sR
ive
r
6350000
6350000
Tp.95
6340000
6340000
S n i p e C re e k
Tp.94
r
ive
sR
Ell
6330000
6330000
Tp.93

k Riv
er
ver
r Ri
ve
6320000
6320000
Do
Tp.92
MacKay River
6310000
6310000
Bi
rc hw
oo Tp.91
d
Cr
eek
River
MacK ay
6300000
6300000
Wh
Du isk
nki e
rk
R i ve
r
Tp.90
Round Lake
6290000
6290000
Tp.89
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000

LEGEND
10 0 10
TERRESTRIAL LOCAL STUDY AREA OWL SURVEY LOCATIONS
INDIAN RESERVE 800 m BUFFER AROUND SCALE 1:250,000 KILOMETRES
OWL PLOT CENTRE
OPEN WATER
PROJECT
WATERCOURSE
DISTURBED
OWL SURVEY LOCATIONS IN THE

TITLE
LOCAL STUDY AREA, 2010

REFERENCE
FIGURE: 9
GIS CC 13 Oct. 2010
December 2010
2.1.7 Marsh Bird Surveys
Surveys targeting marsh birds were conducted to determine the distribution and
habitat associations of sora, yellow rail, Virginia rail, American bittern and
pied-billed grebe in the LSA. These marsh birds are primarily nocturnal and are
difficult to detect using traditional avian point count surveys due to their
secretive and crepuscular nature (i.e., active at twilight or just before dawn),
inconsistent vocalizations, and preference for densely vegetated habitat
(Prescott et al. 2001; Priestley 2002). However, marsh birds do respond to
breeding call playbacks. Surveys were therefore conducted by broadcasting
recorded breeding calls using digital wildlife callers to elicit responses. All
playbacks followed the Marsh Monitoring Program protocol developed through
Bird Studies Canada (MMP 2009, internet site). The initial version of this
protocol was field tested in Alberta in 2001 during the pilot study for the Alberta
Marsh Monitoring Program (Priestley 2002).
Marsh bird surveys in the LSA were conducted at 22 plots from June 2 to 5, 2010
(Figure 10). Marsh bird survey plots corresponded with amphibian survey plots
(Section 2.1.9) and were a minimum of 400 m apart. Plots were initially selected
at wetlands throughout the LSA. Wetlands types sampled included swamps,
bogs, fens, lakes/ponds, creeks with marshy floodplains and disturbed areas with
standing water. Vegetation classification at plots was verified during daylight
hours and plots were moved to the nearest appropriate wetlands type if vegetation
at the initially selected plot did not match Alberta Wetlands Inventory
predictions. Sampling occurred near lakes/ponds and creeks and in a variety of
wetlands vegetation communities (Section 4.2).
Surveys were conducted during nocturnal periods (i.e., 30 minutes after sunset to
30 minutes before sunrise) and consisted of five minutes of passive listening
followed by a single broadcast of the call playback recording. The recording
sequentially played breeding calls of sora, yellow rail, Virginia rail, American
bittern and pied-billed grebe, each separated by 30 seconds of silence. Presence
of a marsh bird species at a given sampling plot was established by hearing its
distinctive call.
Golder Associates
I:\CLIENTS\AOSC\09-1346-1011\mapping\mxd\Wildlife\Baseline\Fig10_Marsh_Bird_Locations.mxd
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
Rg.19 Rg.18 Rg.17 Rg.16

W4M
Jo
s
6360000
6360000
ly
n
C
re
e
k
k
ree
aC
e lse
Ch
Tp.96
E ll
sR
iv e
r
6350000
6350000
Tp.95
6340000
6340000
Sni p e C re ek
Tp.94
r
iv e
sR
E ll
6330000
6330000
Tp.93

k Riv
er
iv e r
rR
ve
6320000
6320000
Do
Tp.92
MacKay River
6310000
Bi
rch
6310000
wo
od Tp.91
C
r ee
k
River
MacKay
6300000
6300000
Wh
Du is
nk
ir k
Ri v
er
Tp.90
Round Lak
6290000
6290000
Tp.89
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000

LEGEND
10 0 10
TERRESTRIAL LOCAL STUDY AREA MARSH BIRD PLOT LOCATION
INDIAN RESERVE YELLOW RAIL PLOT LOCATION SCALE 1:250,000 KILOMETRES
OPEN WATER
PROJECT
WATERCOURSE
MARSH BIRD AND YELLOW RAIL SURVEY

TITLE
LOCATIONS IN THE LOCAL STUDY AREA, 2010

REFERENCE
FIGURE: 10
GIS JH 22 Nov. 2010
December 2010
In addition to the presence of marsh birds, information recorded at each plot

included date, arrival/departure times, GPS location, moon phase, dominant
emergent vegetation and ecosite phase or wetlands type. As the probability of
detecting marsh bird calls is affected by environmental conditions, including
temperature and rainfall, weather conditions (i.e., air and water temperatures,
wind speed, cloud cover and precipitation) were recorded at each plot
(Conway 2009). Surveys were discontinued if temperatures or wind conditions
were judged to interfere with marsh bird calls or the ability of surveyors to detect
calling birds. Surveys were not conducted if wind speeds exceeded 20 km/hr or
precipitation was greater than a light drizzle.
2.1.7.1 Yellow Rails

Separate surveys exclusively targeting yellow rails were conducted. Yellow rails
are federally listed as a species of “Special Concern” by the Committee on the
Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) (COSEWIC 2001) and as
“Schedule 1: Special Concern” under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) (Species at
Risk Public Registry 2010, internet site). However, yellow rail status in Alberta
is not well-defined and few data concerning distribution or abundance are
available (ASRD 2006, internet site), which is why supplementary survey efforts
focused on this species.
Yellow rail surveys followed the Canadian Wildlife Service Standardized

Protocol for the Survey of Yellow Rails in the Prairie and Northern Region
(Bazin and Baldwin 2007), which conforms closely to recommendations
presented in the Standardized North American Marsh Bird Monitoring Protocols
developed by Conway (2009). Standardized survey protocols were developed to
encourage government and non-government practitioners to collect reliable,
comparable information on the number and distribution of yellow rails across the
three Prairie Provinces and the Northwest Territories. If adhered to, these
protocols will permit comparisons across multiple temporal and spatial scales,
facilitating local and regional yellow rail monitoring and management programs.
During the breeding season, male yellow rails vocalize using a distinctive call
consisting of a series of clicks, which sounds like stones tapping together. Like
many marsh birds, they vocalize primarily at night after complete darkness,
typically from a stationary location (Alvo and Robert 1999, internet site;
Bookhout 1995, internet site) and they respond to playback calls. In the absence
of specific information on peak breeding periods for yellow rails near Fort
McMurray, Bazin and Baldwin (2007) recommend that surveys occur between
the end of May and mid-July.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Twenty-five sample plots for yellow rails were established in shrubby fen
(FONS), graminoid fen (FONG) or graminoid marsh (MONG) habitats in and
around the LSA and were surveyed during July 7 and 8, 2010. Like the marsh
bird surveys described above, yellow rail call playback surveys took place at
night (i.e., 30 minutes after sunset to 30 minutes before sunrise). Surveys began
with five minutes of passive listening to provide rails with time to resume normal
behaviour after the disturbance associated with the arrival of surveyors ended.
Passive listening also provides the opportunity to identify spontaneous calling by
rails. Following the passive listening period, 30 seconds of yellow rail calls were
played followed by 30 seconds of silence in an alternating sequence for three
minutes. Finally, two minutes of silence were observed to provide time for rails
to respond to the playbacks and for surveyors to listen for incidental calls.
In addition to recording responses by yellow rails to playbacks, information

obtained at each sample plot included date, arrival/departure times, GPS location,
moon phase, dominant emergent vegetation, ecosite phase or wetlands type and
any incidental wildlife species present. As the probability of detecting marsh
bird calls is affected by environmental conditions, including temperature and
rainfall, weather conditions (i.e., air and water temperatures, wind speed, cloud
cover and precipitation) were recorded at each plot (Conway 2009). Surveys
were discontinued if temperatures or wind conditions were judged to interfere
with marsh bird calling or the ability of surveyors to detect calling birds.
Surveys were not conducted if wind speeds exceeded 20 km/hr or precipitation
was greater than a light drizzle.
2.1.8 Breeding Bird Surveys

Breeding bird species composition, populations and community indices were
estimated using surveys conducted in accordance with standard technical
procedures for point counts, based on methods described in Ralph (1993).
Breeding bird surveys are designed to document the presence of a wide variety of
neotropical migrants, including species of concern such as the olive-sided
flycatcher or Canada warbler.
Breeding bird surveys were conducted in June 2008 and June 2010 (Table 2) to
describe species occurrence, relative abundance, habitat use and classification of
birds within the various habitat types (i.e., ecosite phases and wetlands types) in
the LSA. A total of 236 point counts were completed (Figure 11).
Survey plots were established a minimum of 250 m apart along transects

throughout the LSA, and were further constrained to locations greater than 100 m
from roads and 50 m from cutlines. Surveys began as early as half an hour
before sunrise and continued no later than 10:00 a.m. The first point count
location on each transect was randomly chosen and was accessed using a
combination of 4x4 truck and ATV.
Golder Associates
I:\CLIENTS\AOSC\09-1346-1011\mapping\mxd\Wildlife\Baseline\Fig11_BreedingBird_Locations .mxd
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
Rg.19 Rg.18 Rg.17 Rg.16

W4M
Jo
s
6360000
6360000
ly
n
C
re
e
k
k
ree
aC
e lse
Ch
Tp.96
E ll
sR
iv e
r
6350000
6350000
Tp.95
6340000
6340000
Sni p e C re ek
Tp.94
r
iv e
sR
E ll
6330000
6330000
Tp.93

k Riv
er
ver
Ri
er
ov
6320000
6320000
D
Tp.92
MacKay River
6310000
Bi
rch
6310000
wo
od Tp.91
C
r ee
k
River
MacKay
6300000
6300000
Wh
Du i sk
nk ey
ir k
Ri v
er
Tp.90
Round
6290000
6290000
Tp.89
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000

LEGEND
10 0 10
TERRESTRIAL LOCAL STUDY AREA BREEDING BIRD POINT COUNT LOCATION
OPEN WATER
PROJECT
WATERCOURSE
BREEDING BIRD POINT COUNT LOCATIONS

TITLE
2008 AND 2010
REFERENCE
FIGURE: 11
GIS JH 22 Nov. 2010
December 2010
At each point count location, an initial two minutes of silence allowed the birds
to adjust to the observer’s presence. A five-minute survey ensued, during which
all species heard or observed were recorded. Observations were divided into
those species heard within and outside a 50 m radius, and those heard within the
first three minutes and in the following two minutes.
This method allows for comparison and exchange of data with the North
American Breeding Bird Survey. The approximate position of each individual
bird in relation to the observer was illustrated on a sketch map of the point count
location. In addition, the abbreviated species name, the sex of individuals and
movements of individuals around the point count location were recorded. The
movements of individuals were carefully monitored to minimize the probability
of recounting birds within the same or adjacent plots.
Date, time, observer, plot number, GPS waypoint and species flying through or
above the canopy were recorded at each point count location. Incidental wildlife
observations were recorded. Ecosite phase or wetlands type was determined.
To eliminate bias in bird detection, surveys were not conducted during periods of
high winds, heavy rains or thick fog. Wind speeds greater than 20 km/hr are
sufficient to interfere with auditory birding.
Data Analysis
Bird community composition was described for each plot by calculating the
number of individuals of each bird species found, species richness (i.e., number
of different species), and species diversity (Shannon-Weiner Index; Krebs 2009).
Only birds detected within 50 m of plot centres were included in analyses of
community composition. However, all occurrences of species listed provincially
or federally are discussed in Section 7.
Species richness, abundance and diversity were tested statistically to determine

whether they differed among habitat types in and around the LSA. Univariate
analysis of variance in a General Linear Model (GLM) was used to determine if
differences existed among means of species richness, diversity and abundance by
habitat type (SPSS Inc. 2005). If differences were found, Tukey’s Honestly
Significant Difference (HSD) Post Hoc tests were run to determine which habitat
types were different from each other. In addition, bird species presence was
compared qualitatively to habitat data to identify habitat associations.
Golder Associates
December 2010
A similar analysis was conducted to determine whether breeding bird abundance,

richness, or diversity differed among habitats at the RSA scale. This analysis
pooled data collected exclusively for the Project with data previously collected
from other projects in the RSA.
2.1.9 Amphibian Surveys
Amphibian surveys were conducted to determine the distribution and habitat

associations of boreal chorus frog, wood frog, boreal (western) toad, Canadian
toad and northern leopard frog in and around the LSA. The amphibian call
survey followed the North American Amphibian Monitoring Program
(PWRC 2005, internet site), the Alberta Volunteer Amphibian Monitoring
Program (ACA and ASRD 2006) and the Alberta Marsh Monitoring Program for
amphibians (MMP 2009, internet site). Although previously thought to be mute,
boreal toads are now known to call during their breeding season; their call is a
very human-like whistle (Roberts 2007, internet site).
Using vegetation classification, plots were pre-selected a minimum of 500 m

apart, predominantly at wetlands throughout the study area (Figure 12).
Wetlands types sampled included swamps, bogs, fens, lakes/ponds, creeks with
marshy floodplains and disturbed areas with standing water. Wetlands
classification was based on the Alberta Wetlands Inventory (Halsey et al. 2003).
Some upland plots were surveyed to provide better study area coverage and
additional opportunities to listen for toads. Vegetation classification was verified
during daylight hours and pre-selected plots were adjusted as necessary. Plots
that could not be verified in the field were classified by GIS technicians based on
Alberta Vegetation Inventory data (Section 5.1).
Golder Associates
I:\CLIENTS\AOSC\09-1346-1011\mapping\mxd\Wildlife\Baseline\Fig12_Amphib_Survey_Locations .mxd
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
Rg.19 Rg.18 Rg.17 Rg.16

W4M
Jo
s
6360000
6360000
ly
n
C
re
e
k
k
ree
aC
e lse
Ch
Tp.96
E ll
sR
iv e
r
6350000
6350000
Tp.95
6340000
6340000
Sni p e C re ek
Tp.94
r
iv e
sR
E ll
6330000
6330000
Tp.93

k Riv
er
ver
Ri
er
ov
6320000
6320000
D
Tp.92
MacKay River
6310000
Bi
rch
6310000
wo
od Tp.91
C
r ee
k
River
MacKay
6300000
6300000
Wh
Du i sk
nk ey
ir k
Ri v
er
Tp.90
Round
6290000
6290000
Tp.89
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000

LEGEND
10 0 10
TERRESTRIAL LOCAL STUDY AREA AMPHIBIAN SURVEY LOCATION
OPEN WATER
PROJECT
WATERCOURSE
AMPHIBIAN SURVEY LOCATIONS IN
TITLE
AND AROUND THE LOCAL STUDY AREA,
2008 THROUGH 2010
REFERENCE
FIGURE: 12
HYDROGRAPHY DATA OBTAINED FROM GeoGratis, © DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. GIS JH 15 Oct. 2010
December 2010
A total of 202 plots were surveyed during June 2, 3, 4 and 6, 2008, May 28
to 31, 2009 and June 2, 4 and 5, 2010. Wherever possible, wetlands at plots were
visually scanned during daylight hours for evidence of breeding amphibians
(e.g., egg masses, larvae) before conducting auditory surveys. Auditory surveys
were conducted during the night (i.e., 30 minutes after sunset to 30 minutes
before sunrise). Each survey consisted of observers remaining still and silent for
five minutes while listening for calling amphibians. Individual species were
identified by their distinctive calls and an approximation of breeding chorus size
at each plot was determined using the following call index scale:
 Rank 0 = none;
 Rank 1 = individuals can be counted; there is space between calls
(e.g., 1 to 3 animals);
 Rank 2 = individual calls can be distinguished but there is some call
overlap (e.g., 4 to 7 animals); and
 Rank 3 = full chorus, calls are constant, continuous and overlapping
(e.g., 8 or more animals; ACA and ASRD 2006; PWRC 2005, internet
site).
Information recorded at each plot included date, arrival/departure times, GPS

location, habitat, dominant waterbody type and environmental conditions (i.e., air
and water temperatures, water pH, wind speed, cloud cover and precipitation).
Surveys were discontinued if wind speed was more than 20 km/hr or if
precipitation was more than a light drizzle because these may reduce the
propensity for amphibians to call or the probability that calls will be detected by
surveyors.
Canadian Toad Surveys

Canadian toad survey locations were established in or adjacent to areas with
high-quality Canadian toad habitat (AOSC 2009, Figure 12). Survey locations
were placed about 1.6 km apart to decrease the probability of double-counting.
Sampling began one half hour after sunset and ended between 2:30 a.m. and
3:30 a.m. (AOSC 2009). At each survey location, observers listened for
amphibian calls for a 10-minute period before moving to the next survey
location. When detected, each species was identified, the number of individuals
estimated, and a GPS location was estimated using triangulation.
2.1.9.1 Relative Abundance

An estimate of breeding populations was determined from the field data to
determine if relative abundance of amphibian species was different among
Golder Associates
December 2010
vegetation communities and waterbodies (Stevens and Paszkowski 2004).

Breeding chorus size could not always be accurately estimated for Rank 3
choruses. Rank 3 choruses were not detected for boreal toads and Canadian
toads. Therefore, individual numbers for these species were counted in the field.
Rank 3 choruses were detected for boreal chorus frogs and wood frogs, and for
analysis purposes, unless otherwise specified in the field, a Rank 3 chorus was
assumed to equal 30 boreal chorus frogs and 59 wood frogs (Stevens and
Paszkowski 2004; Stevens et al. 2007).
Data from five projects in the RSA (including the Project) were used to increase
sample sizes for the analyses described below. Due to differences in survey
techniques, data from the Canadian toad surveys were not included.
2.1.9.2 Habitat Group Analysis

Habitat data were grouped to examine habitat associations. Ecosite phases and
wetlands types for call locations were grouped to reduce the number of
categorical variables. Grouping was based on ecological similarity using the
Alberta Wetlands Inventory (Halsey et al. 2003) as follows:
 Bogs include all bog types. Bogs are peatlands that have low surface
water flow.
 Disturbed sites include all sites consisting of natural (i.e., burn) and
anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., cutlines, clearcuts, roads).
 Fens include all fen types. Fens differ from bogs in that they are
characterized by water flow.
 Upland sites include all upland ecosite phases because sample size is
low.
 Wetlands include all marshes, swamps and open shallow water wetlands
types. These areas predominately consist of permanent standing water.
Waterbodies of call locations were also grouped based on ecological similarity as

follows:
 the creeks group includes all moving bodies of water less than 5 m
across;
 the rivers group includes all moving bodies of water more than 5 m
across;
 the disturbed group includes all ditches and cutlines with standing
water;
Golder Associates
December 2010
 the lakes/ponds group includes all open waterbodies; and

 the standing water group includes all marshes, swamps, bogs and fens.
Statistical analysis of boreal chorus frog and wood frog habitat associations was
based on the relative abundance of each chorus at each plot. The non-parametric
Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare boreal chorus frog and wood frog
relative abundance among habitat and wetlands groups and differences among
groups were evaluated using 95% confidence intervals (Zar 1999). Effects were
considered significant at P <0.1. Analysis was conducted in SYSTAT 11.0
(Systat Software Inc. 2004). The Canadian toad and boreal toad datasets were
too small for statistical analysis.
2.2 INCIDENTAL WILDLIFE SIGHTINGS
Incidental wildlife sightings including visual and auditory identification and the
presence of sign (i.e., tracks or scat) were recorded during each wildlife survey.
Focus was placed on detecting and reporting species of concern, and not all
observations of common species were recorded. By focusing on species of
concern, incidental observations provide an opportunity to record presence within
the LSA of species that may be important, but for which no formal surveys were
conducted. For example, common nighthawks are listed as “Sensitive”
provincially and “Threatened” federally (ASRD 2006, internet site; Species at
Risk Public Registry 2010, internet site). Several different wildlife field surveys
(e.g., amphibian and breeding bird) were conducted in appropriate habitats
during dawn and dusk, when common nighthawks are active. If nighthawks were
present in the LSA, therefore, they might be recorded as incidentals. Similarly,
whooping cranes, which migrate through the area in spring and fall, have the
potential to be recorded incidentally during surveys occurring at those times of
year, such as during beaver and muskrat aerial surveys. Although incidental
sightings can prove the presence of a species within the LSA if it is detected, lack
of observation does not prove its absence. Incidental observations are presented
where appropriate in the results and have been compiled in Attachment C.
2.3 SPECIES OF CONCERN
Species of conservation concern are defined by provincial and federal

government agencies. The status of wildlife in Alberta has been ranked
nationally by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
(COSEWIC 2009, internet site) and the Species At Risk Act (Species at Risk
Public Registry 2010, internet site), and provincially (ASRD 2006, internet site).
At the provincial level, these species are designated as “Sensitive”, “May Be at
Risk” and “At Risk” (ASRD 2006, internet site). At the federal level these
Golder Associates
December 2010
species are designated as “Endangered”, “Threatened”, “Special Concern”

(vulnerable) or “Data Deficient” (indeterminate) (Species at Risk Public Registry
2010, internet site). Other species of concern are defined by their economic,
cultural, or ecological value.
2.4 IMPORTANT WILDLIFE HABITAT
Species for which habitat is considered important are those of ecological,

traditional and socio-economic importance. The determination of important
wildlife habitat included the following:
 a literature review, including Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs)

(Westworth and Associates 1990) and ungulate zones in and around the
LSA;
 a review of data collected for this study; and
 determination of important vegetation types within a biodiversity
framework.
Wildlife diversity indices were used to determine important vegetation types for
terrestrial vertebrates.
Golder Associates
December 2010
3 RESULTS — MAMMALS
3.1 UNGULATES
Ungulates in the LSA include woodland caribou, moose, white-tailed deer and
mule deer.
3.1.1 Woodland Caribou
Woodland caribou are one of five Cumulative Environmental Management

Association Sustainable Ecosystems Working Group (CEMA-SEWG) ratified
environmental indicators. Woodland caribou are provincially listed as “At Risk”
(ASRD 2006, internet site), federally listed as “Threatened” and are on
Schedule 1 of SARA (Species at Risk Public Registry 2010, internet site). More
information on the social importance, conservation status, and ecology of
woodland caribou in northeastern Alberta can be found in Section 7.1.1.
3.1.1.1 Population Indices In and Around the Local Study Area
The WSAR woodland caribou range partly overlaps with the central and
southeastern portions of the LSA (Section 6.2). This range is occupied by the
Wabasca-Dunkirk herd (ACC 2010, internet site). The finite rate-of-increase
(i.e., lambda) for caribou in the WSAR range was last estimated in 2008 to be
0.90. The geometric mean of lambda from 2003 to 2008 for woodland caribou
within this range was 0.95 (Schneider et al. 2010). The Red Earth woodland
caribou range and herd intersects with the northern edge of the LSA. Lambda for
woodland caribou in the Red Earth range was last estimated in 2008 to be 0.84.
The geometric mean of lambda from 2003 to 2008 for woodland caribou in this
range was 0.87 (Schneider et al. 2010). A lambda value of less than one means
that the population is currently in a state of decline.
Ungulate Aerial Survey

During 2008 and 2009, eighteen woodland caribou including 12 cows and
6 calves were observed along survey routes. The ratio of caribou cows to calves
was 100:50. Nineteen woodland caribou including 8 cows, 5 calves, 5 bulls, and
1 animal of unknown age and sex were observed in and near the LSA during
2010 surveys, yielding a minimum density of 0.023 caribou/km2. The caribou
were found in four groups consisting of 10, 4, 2 and 3 individuals. Three of the
four groups were observed just west of the centre of the LSA (Figure 13). The
fourth group was observed just outside of the southwest corner of the LSA. The
ratio of caribou cows to calves was 100:63.
Golder Associates
I:\CLIENTS\AOSC\09-1346-1011\mapping\mxd\Wildlife\Baseline\Fig13_Ugulates_Observed_LSA.mxd
400000 425000
Rg.16
Rg.18 Rg.17 Rg.15 Rg.14
W4M
Jo
s
ly
n
C
re
e
eek
k
Cr
ea
els
Ch
Tp.96
Ell
sR
ive
r
6350000
6350000
Tp.95
Sni p e Cre ek
Tp.94
er
Riv
Ells
Tp.93
6325000
6325000
k Riv
er
ver
Ri
er
D ov
Tp.92
MacKay River
Bir
ch
wo
o d
Tp.91
Cr
eek
River
MacKay
6300000
6300000
Wh
Du isk
nk ey
irk
Riv
er
Tp.90
Round La
Tp.89
400000 425000
LEGEND
UNGULATE AERIAL SURVEY OBSERVATION POINTS
10 0 10
TERRESTRIAL LOCAL STUDY AREA
INDIAN RESERVE CARIBOU SCALE 1:250,000 KILOMETRES
OPEN WATER MOOSE
PROJECT
WATERCOURSE
UNGULATES OBSERVED IN AND AROUND
TITLE
THE LOCAL STUDY AREA DURING UNGULATE
AERIAL SURVEYS, 2008 THROUGH 2010
REFERENCE
FIGURE: 13
December 2010
Differences in detectability due to variations in cover may confound the accuracy

of direct comparisons between survey areas. However, the minimum density of
caribou in and around the LSA appeared to be intermediate compared to other
estimated caribou densities in northeastern Alberta. Most other surveys report
densities between 0 and 0.06 caribou/km2 (Attachment E; Table E-6), with only
two studies reporting caribou densities exceeding 0.1 caribou/km2, both of which
were conducted for Petro Canada’s Meadow Creek Project (Golder 2003a;
Petro-Canada 2001). Caribou productivity in and around the LSA (as measured
by cow-calf ratios) was high compared with values at or below 100:20 reported
at the scale of caribou ranges in northeastern Alberta (McLoughlin et al. 2003).
Winter Track Counts

During the late-winter track count surveys, 18 caribou tracks were found,
yielding a track density of 0.03 tracks/km-day (Figure 14; Attachment D,
Table D-1). Caribou track density is higher than many other studies in the region
but lower than some others (Attachment E, Table E-7).
Photographic Bait Stations

One woodland caribou photograph was taken at the bait stations during the spring
session and eight were taken during the fall session (Figure 15, Attachment F).
The photo rate was 0.002 in the spring and 0.015 in the fall. The proportion of
cameras with a photo in the spring was 0.05 and 0.1 during the fall session.
Golder Associates
NAMUR RIVER 174A
I:\CLIENTS\AOSC\09-1346-1011\mapping\mxd\Wildlife\Baseline\Fig14_UngulateLocations.mxd
400000 425000
Rg.19 Rg.18 Rg.17 Rg.16 Rg.15 Rg.14

Namur Lake
W4M
Jo
s ly
n
C
re
e
k
k
ree
e aC
els
Ch
Tp.96
Ell
sR
ive
r
6350000
6350000
Tp.95
Sni p e Cre ek
Tp.94
er
Riv
Ells
Tp.93
6325000
6325000
Rabbit Lake D un kir
k Riv
er
v er
Ri
v er
Do
Tp.92
MacKay River
Bir
ch
wo
o d
Tp.91
Cr
eek
River
MacKay
6300000
6300000
Wh
Du isk
nk
irk
Riv
er
Tp.90
Round Lake
Tp.89
400000 425000
LEGEND
TRACK OBSERVATIONS
10 0 10
INDIAN RESERVE CARIBOU SCALE 1:250,000 KILOMETRES
OPEN WATER MOOSE
INCIDENTAL OBSERVATIONS
PROJECT
WATERCOURSE
DISTURBED CARIBOU DOVER COMMERCIAL PROJECT
UNGULATE TRACK AND INCIDENTAL

EXISTING AND APPROVED URBAN MOOSE
TITLE
OBSERVATIONS IN AND AROUND THE
LOCAL STUDY AREA, 2008 THROUGH 2010
REFERENCE
FIGURE: 14
NAMUR RIVER 174A
I:\CLIENTS\AOSC\09-1346-1011\mapping\mxd\Wildlife\Baseline\Fig15_BaitStation_Observed.mxd
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
Rg.19 Rg.18 Rg.17 Rg.16

W4M
Jo
s
6360000
6360000
ly
n
C
re
e
k
k
ree
e aC
els
Ch
Tp.96
E ll
sR
iv e
r
6350000
6350000
Tp.95
6340000
6340000
Sni p e C re ek
Tp.94
r
iv e
sR
E ll
6330000
6330000
Tp.93

k Riv
er
iv e r
rR
ve
6320000
6320000
Do
Tp.92
MacKay River
6310000
Bi
r ch
6310000
wo
od Tp.91
C
r ee
k
River
MacKay
6300000
6300000
Wh
Du isk
nk
ir k
Ri v
er
Tp.90
Round Lake
6290000
6290000
Tp.89
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000

LEGEND
WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS
10 0 10
INDIAN RESERVE AMERICAN PINE MARTEN SCALE 1:250,000 KILOMETRES
OPEN WATER BLACK BEAR
PROJECT
WATERCOURSE CANADA LYNX
DISTURBED COYOTE DOVER COMMERCIAL PROJECT
EXISTING AND APPROVED URBAN FISHER
TITLE
GREY WOLF
OBSERVATIONS IN AND AROUND
MOOSE
THE LOCAL STUDY AREA, 2010
WOODLAND CARIBOU
WOLVERINE
REFERENCE
FIGURE: 15
GIS CC 14 Oct. 2010
December 2010
3.1.1.2 Habitat

Caribou observed during ungulate aerial surveys were found primarily in either
wooded bog (BTNN) or wooded fen (FTNN) habitats (Table 5). This is typical
of caribou in the region, which tend to prefer fen-bog complexes to well-drained
upland habitat, possibly as a mechanism to avoid predation by wolves (James et
al. 2004), which is an important limiting factor for caribou in northeastern
Alberta (McLoughlin et al. 2003).
Table 5 Number of Caribou Observations by Age-Sex and Vegetation Type

Surveys, 2008 through 2010
(a)
Vegetation Type Number of Caribou by Sex
Total # of
Description Habitat Cow Calf Bull Unidentified
Observations
wooded bog BTNN 7 4 1 0 12
wooded bog with collapse scar BTXC 3 0 0 0 3
wooded fen FTNN 9 6 4 1 20
shrubby fen FONS 1 1 0 0 2
Total 20 11 5 1 37
(a)
Habitat based on vegetation by ecosite phase or wetlands types from Beckingham and Archibald (1996) and Halsey et
al. (2003), respectively.
Winter Track Counts

In accordance with the aerial survey results, caribou tracks were recorded in the
wooded bog (BTNN) and wooded fen (FTNN) wetlands types during winter track
count surveys in and around the LSA (Attachment D, Tables D-1 and D-2).
3.1.2 Moose
Moose are one of five CEMA-SEWG environmental indicators. Moose have

also been identified as a keystone species for the Fort McKay First Nation
(Traditional Land Use Baseline Report, included on a CD with the Application
[Section 3.2.2.4]). Moose are considered “Secure” within Alberta (ASRD 2006,
internet site). More information on the social importance, conservation status,
and ecology of moose in northeastern Alberta can be found in Section 7.1.5.3.

Based on resident hunter harvest statistics in the RSA, a total of 88 and
109 moose were harvested within Wildlife Management Units (WMUs) 531 and
Golder Associates
December 2010
518, respectively, from 2007 and 2009 (Resource Use Assessment, Volume 6;
GOA 2010, internet site). Most of the LSA is in WMU 531, and the proposed
access and utility corridors are in WMU 518.
Moose population densities were estimated for WMU 531 (i.e., the dominant
WMU in the RSA) in 1994, 2001, and 2009 by ASRD, providing a time-series
over which population trends can be assessed (ASRD 2009; Powell 2010b, pers.
comm.). Based on these surveys, the moose population in WMU 531 appears to
have declined by more than half over a period of 15 years from a high of
0.10 moose/km2 in the mid 1990s to 0.04 moose/km2 in 2009 (ASRD 2009).

During 2008 and 2009, sixty-nine moose including 40 cows, 11 calves, and 18
bulls were observed. The ratio of cow to calf moose was 100:28. Thirty-two
moose including 8 cows, 1 calf, 15 bulls and 8 animals of unknown age and sex
were observed in or near the LSA during 2010, yielding a minimum density of
0.038 moose/km2. Ten moose were solitary and the other twenty-two occurred in
groups of 2 to 4 individuals. Moose observations were distributed throughout
most of the LSA (Figure 13). None were observed in the southeastern portion of
the LSA that comprises the proposed access and utility corridors. The ratio of
cow to calf moose was 100:13.
Differences in detectability due to variations in cover may confound the accuracy

of direct comparisons of density estimates between survey areas. However, the
estimated moose density in and around the LSA appears to be lower than in most
other places where moose densities have been estimated in northeastern Alberta.
Densities greater than 0.1 moose/km2 are typically reported (Attachment E;
Table E1), and only two other studies report moose densities less than
0.04 moose/km2 (MEG 2008; Shell 2007). Estimated moose productivity in and
around the LSA (as measured by cow-calf ratios) was at the low end of
previously reported values (Attachment E; Table E-2). However, the large
number of moose of unknown age-sex class in 2010 (i.e., 25%) introduces some
uncertainty around this estimate.
Winter Track Counts

Forty five moose tracks were recorded during the winter track count surveys for a
density of 0.08 tracks/km-day (Figure 14; Attachment D, Table D-1). Track
density was lower than in other regional studies (Attachment E, Table E-3),
which, in combination with aerial survey results further supports the suggestion
that moose density in and around the LSA is relatively low. Regional track
densities ranged from 0.16 tracks/km-day at the Canadian Natural Horizon
Golder Associates
December 2010
Project (Canadian Natural 2002), to 0.68 tracks/km-day at the Suncor Energy Inc.
(Suncor) Voyageur South Project (Golder 2007a). The Shell Pierre River Mine
Project reported 0.34 moose tracks/km-day (Shell 2007).

Nine moose photographs were taken at the bait stations including one during the
spring session, four during the summer session and four during the fall session
(Figure 15, Attachment F). The photo rate was 0.002 in the spring, 0.007 in the
summer and 0.006 in the fall. The proportion of cameras with a photo was 0.05 in
the spring, 0.15 in the summer and 0.1 in the fall.
3.1.2.2 Habitat

Moose were observed in a variety of habitat types during ungulate aerial surveys,
but were found primarily in wetlands (Table 6). Wetlands comprise about 57%
of the LSA, while upland habitats make up about 40%. Moose typically select
well-drained upland habitats in northeastern Alberta (James et al. 2004), although
they frequently use wetlands (Attachment E, Table E-1).
Table 6 Number of Moose Observations by Age-Sex and Vegetation Type

Surveys, 2008 to 2010
(a)
Vegetation Type Number of Moose
Description Habitat Code Cow Calf Bull Unknown Total
Ecosite Phase
low-bush cranberry aspen d1 - - 2 - 2
low-bush cranberry aspen-white spruce d2 4 2 2 - 8
low-bush cranberry white spruce d3 - - 4 - 4
Labrador tea–black spruce-jack pine g1 2 - - - 2
unknown unk 6 1 4 - 11
Wetlands Type
wooded bog BTNN 7 3 2 - 12
wooded bog with collapse scar BTXC - - 1 - 1
graminoid fen FONG 1 1 - - 2
shrubby fen FONS 16 2 8 - 26
wooded fen FTNN 5 1 5 2 13
shrubby swamp SONS 2 2 2 - 6
Disturbances
clear cut CC 5 - 2 3 10
burned upland BUu - - - 3 3
burned wetlands BUw - - 1 - 1
Total 48 12 33 8 101
(a)
Habitat based on vegetation by ecosite or wetlands types from Beckingham and Archibald (1996) and Halsey et al.
(2003) respectively.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Winter Track Counts

During winter track count surveys within the LSA, 32 of the 45 moose tracks
were recorded in the wooded bog (BTNN) and wooded fen (FTNN) wetlands
types (Attachment D, Table D-1). The remaining tracks were observed within
shrubby bog (BONS), shrubby fen (FONS), low-bush cranberry aspen-white
spruce (d2), blueberry aspen-white spruce (b3) and Labrador tea–subhygric black
spruce-jack pine (g1) ecosite phases and wetlands types. Regionally, moose used
a variety of habitats, but tracks/km-day were most abundant in shrubby marshes
(MONS; Attachment D, Table D-2).
The prevalence of moose tracks in wetlands types suggests that moose prefer
habitats with high forage availability, and that forage may be more important
than cover in northeastern Alberta. Skinner and Westworth (1981), URSUS and
Komex (1997) and Suncor Energy Inc. (Suncor 2000) also indicated that moose
tracks were more likely to be found in wetlands types during the winter. Other
studies have shown that moose are associated with aspen and mixedwood forests
during the winter (Golder 1997a,b; Westworth and Brusnyk 1982; Westworth,
Brusnyk and Associates 1996a).
Moose habitat associations were different elsewhere, where moose have shown
preferences for a diversity of habitat types, including burned areas, blueberry
aspen-white spruce (b3), low-bush cranberry aspen (d1), dogwood balsam
poplar-aspen (e1) and shrubby fen (FONS) ecosite phases and wetlands types
(Attachment E, Table E-3).
3.1.3 White-Tailed Deer and Mule Deer
Deer are at the northern end of their range in the Oil Sands Region (Smith 1993).
Historical populations tended to be small and localized. However, white-tailed
deer appear to have expanded their range and increased in number in northeastern
Alberta during the last 5 to 10 years (Latham 2009). White-tailed deer increases
may exacerbate woodland caribou population decline in northeastern Alberta
through a process known as apparent competition (Holt 1977), where increasing
deer populations cause wolf populations to increase and woodland caribou
populations to decrease because of additional wolf predation (Latham 2009). In
this sense, white-tailed deer can be considered an invasive species in the Oil
Sands Region.
In general, high-quality habitat for deer consists of spatially heterogeneous areas

containing a variety of forage species near areas that provide suitable cover from
weather, predators and insects (Runge and Wobeser 1975). Deer benefit from
abundant browse and cover along watercourses and may use riparian habitat as
Golder Associates
December 2010
travel corridors during seasonal or dispersal movements (Brewster 1988). Deer

prefer terrestrial forest, regenerating areas and riparian areas. Deer in Alberta are
limited by the availability of suitable habitat, winter conditions (i.e., snowfall and
temperature) and predation (i.e., natural and human; Stelfox 1993). In the Oil
Sands Region, deer are most frequently associated with cleared or disturbed areas
and well-drained upland habitat (Attachment E; Table E-5). Recent
environmental changes including increased forage opportunities in open habitat
created by human settlement and industrial activity, and milder weather are
hypothesized to underlie white-tailed deer population increases and range
expansion in northern regions (Veitch 2001).
Ungulate Aerial Surveys

No deer were observed in or around the LSA during ungulate aerial surveys.
Winter Track Counts

No deer were observed in or near the LSA during winter track count surveys.
Deer track densities for other projects in the region range from 0.07 to
1.35 tracks/km-day (Attachment E, Table E-5).

No photographs of deer were captured at bait stations.
Incidental Observations
No deer were observed incidentally during baseline surveys.
3.1.3.2 Habitat
Habitat association of deer within the LSA was unavailable because no deer were
found. Elsewhere in the Oil Sands Region, deer have been reported in a wide
variety of upland habitat types, including reclaimed well sites and disturbed areas
(Attachment E, Table E-5). Latham (2009) found that deer were primarily
associated with well-drained upland habitats.
3.2 CANIDS (DOGS)
Canids in the area include wolves, coyotes and red foxes.
Golder Associates
December 2010
3.2.1 Wolves
Wolves are the largest canid occurring in the Oil Sands Region and are listed
provincially as “Secure” (ASRD 2006, internet site). Wolves are increasing in
northeastern Alberta, probably as a function of a changing prey base, including
higher numbers of white-tailed deer (Latham 2009). Wolves are important
predators of ungulates in the region and are an important limiting factor for
woodland caribou.
Movement corridors and habitat connectivity in the regional landscape are likely
important for wolves, as they are a wide-ranging species. Wolves tend to prefer
open areas and avoid heavy coniferous cover in winter (Penner 1976). In studies
where habitat preferences were determined, wolves were observed to prefer
willow wetlands and riparian aspen (Westworth and Brusnyk 1982), black
spruce/tamarack (Westworth, Brusnyk and Associates 1996a) and upland ecosite
phases (Golder 1998a). Wolf habitat preference is likely dependent on the
ecosite phases and wetlands types used by their prey and ease of travel. Wolves
also use cutlines and other linear disturbances for ease of movement when
searching for prey (James and Stuart-Smith 2000).

Fourteen wolf tracks were observed during the winter track count surveys in and
around the LSA for a track density of 0.03 tracks/km-day (Figure 16;
Attachment D, Table D-1). This falls below the range recorded for other projects
in the region (Attachment E, Table E-8). The lowest and highest track densities
previously recorded are 0.08 and 0.21 tracks/km-day (Attachment E, Table E-8).
Wolves and their sign were noted incidentally during other wildlife surveys
(Attachment C) and an average of 3.1 wolves (range = 0 to 6) were harvested
annually from Registered Fur Management Areas (RFMAs) overlapping the LSA
during 2000 to 2009 (Volume 6, Section 3.4; Wu 2010, pers. comm.).
Seven wolf photographs were taken during each of the spring and summer bait
station sessions and four were taken during the fall session (Figure 15,
Attachment F). The average number of days to first photo following camera
set-up was 8.8 days in the spring, 19.6 days in the summer and 10.1 in the fall.
The proportion of cameras with a grey wolf photo was 0.25 during both spring
and summer sessions and 0.05 during the fall session. The photo rate was 0.014
during the spring session, 0.013 during the summer session and 0.006 during the
fall session (Attachment F).
Golder Associates
I:\CLIENTS\AOSC\09-1346-1011\mapping\mxd\Wildlife\Baseline\Fig16_Wolf_Coyote_Lynx_Observations.mxd
400000 425000
Rg.16
Rg.18 Rg.17 Rg.15 Rg.14
W4M
Jo
sly
n
C
re
e
k
k
ree
aC
lse
C he
Tp.96
Ell
sR
ive
r
6350000
6350000
Tp.95
Sni p e Cre ek
Tp.94
er
Riv
Ells
Tp.93
6325000
6325000
k Riv
er
v er
Ri
v er
D o
Tp.92
MacKay River
Bir
ch
wo
o d
Tp.91
Cr
eek
River
MacKay
6300000
6300000
Wh
Du isk
nk
irk
Riv
er
Tp.90
Round Lake
Tp.89
400000 425000
LEGEND
10 0 10
TERRESTRIAL LOCAL STUDY AREA TRACK OBSERVATIONS
INDIAN RESERVE LYNX SCALE 1:250,000 KILOMETRES
OPEN WATER WOLF
INCIDENTAL OBSERVATIONS
PROJECT
WATERCOURSE
DISTURBED COYOTE DOVER COMMERCIAL PROJECT
WOLF, COYOTE AND LYNX TRACK AND

EXISTING AND APPROVED URBAN LYNX
TITLE
INCIDENTAL OBSERVATIONS IN AND AROUND

WOLF
THE LOCAL STUDY AREA, 2008 THROUGH 2010

REFERENCE
FIGURE: 16
GIS JH 16 Nov. 2010
December 2010
3.2.1.2 Habitat
The fourteen wolf tracks observed in and around the LSA during winter track
surveys were observed in the blueberry jack pine-aspen (b1), blueberry aspen-
white spruce (b3), blueberry white spruce-jack pine (b4), Labrador tea jack pine-
black spruce (c1), shrubby bog (BONS) and wooded bog (BTNN) ecosite phases
and wetlands types. Regionally, wolves were found most often travelling
through disturbed areas, along linear disturbances and on ice (Attachment D,
Table D-2).
Elsewhere in the Oil Sands Region, wolves have shown an apparent preference
for low-bush cranberry aspen (d1) and low-bush cranberry aspen-white spruce
(d2) ecosite phases, but have been found within a range of upland, wetlands and
disturbed habitat types (Attachment E, Table E-8).
3.2.2 Coyotes
Coyotes are listed provincially as “Secure” (ASRD 2006, internet site). Coyotes
are smaller than wolves, and like white-tailed deer, they appear to be invading
the Oil Sands Region. Coyotes are generalist predators that use cleared sites
while avoiding densely forested areas (Boyd 1977). Increases in deer numbers in
disturbed areas will often result in an increase in coyotes. Coyotes have been
observed to prefer disturbed vegetation types (Golder 1999a; Penner 1976), black
spruce, coniferous (Skinner and Westworth 1981) and balsam poplar/jack pine
(Golder 1997a,b; Westworth and Brusnyk 1982).

No coyote tracks were observed during winter track count surveys. This is lower
than track densities from previous surveys in the Oil Sands Region, which varied
between 0.09 tracks/km-day to 0.20 tracks/km-day (Attachment E, Table E-9).
One coyote was photographed during the winter bait station session and one was
photographed during the fall session (Figure 15, Attachment F). The average
number of days to first photo following camera set-up was 18.2 days in the
winter and 23.3 in the fall. The proportion of cameras with a photo was 0.05
during both the fall and winter sessions. The photo rate during both the fall and
winter was 0.002. No coyotes were photographed in spring or summer.
One coyote was observed incidentally during the ungulate aerial survey, and an
average of 6.4 coyotes (range = 0 to 22) were harvested annually from RFMAs
overlapping the LSA during 2000 to 2009 (Volume 6, Section 3.4; Wu 2010,
pers. comm.).
Golder Associates
December 2010
3.2.2.2 Habitat
The only coyote observed in the LSA was found in burned habitat (BUu).
Within the RSA, coyotes were found using linear disturbance and ice habitat
most frequently (Attachment D, Table D-2). Coyotes preferred low-bush
cranberry aspen (d1) ecosite phase at Shell Pierre River Mine, low-bush
cranberry aspen-white spruce (d2) ecosite phase at Canadian Natural Horizon,
dogwood balsam poplar-aspen (e1) ecosite phase and ROWs at Suncor Voyageur
South (Canadian Natural 2002; Shell 2007; Golder 2007a) (Attachment E,
Table E-9).
3.2.3 Red Foxes
Red foxes are listed provincially as “Secure” (ASRD 2006, internet site). They
are the smallest canid in northeastern Alberta. Foxes are known to occur in a
variety of ecosite phases and wetlands types, and like wolves and coyotes, prefer
open habitats interspersed with brushy shelter (Pattie and Fisher 1999).
Red foxes may often be under-represented during wildlife surveys in northeastern

Alberta because their tracks are difficult to distinguish from those of coyotes.

No red fox tracks were observed during the winter track count surveys in and
around the LSA. Red fox track densities have ranged from 0.02 tracks/km-day
(Shell 2007) to 0.03 tracks/km-day (Golder 2007a) in the Oil Sands Region
No red foxes were photographed at bait stations during any season.
One red fox track was detected incidentally during baseline wildlife surveys
(Attachment C) and an average of 4.1 foxes (range = 0 to 12) were harvested
annually from RFMAs overlapping the LSA during 2000 to 2009 (Volume 6,
Section 3.4; Wu 2010, pers. comm.).
3.2.3.2 Habitat
The only red fox identified within the LSA was found in a clearcut. Within the
Oil Sands Region, red fox tracks have been recorded in a variety of upland,
wetlands and disturbed habitat types (Attachment E, Table E-10).
Golder Associates
December 2010
3.3 FELIDS (CATS)
Felids in the region include Canada lynx and cougars.
3.3.1 Canada Lynx
Canada lynx are provincially listed as “Sensitive” (ASRD 2006, internet site).
More information on the social importance, conservation status, and ecology of
Canada lynx in northeastern Alberta can be found in the Species of Concern
section (Section 7).

During the winter track count surveys, 127 observations of Canada lynx tracks
were recorded in and around the LSA for a track density of 0.23 tracks/km-day
(Attachment D, Table D-1). Although other studies in the Oil Sands Region have
reported values as high as 0.82 tracks/km-day (Canadian Natural 2002), track
densities typically range from 0.02 to 0.07 tracks/km-day (Attachment E,
Table E-11).
Fourteen Canada lynx were photographed at bait stations during spring, thirteen
during summer, eighteen during the fall and nine during winter (Figure 15).
Number of days to first photo was 10.3 in the spring, 10.9 in the summer, 13.1 in
the fall and 14.6 in the winter. Photo rate was 0.028 during spring, 0.023 during
summer, 0.031 during fall and 0.013 during winter. The proportion of cameras
with a Canada lynx photo was 0.04 in spring, 0.45 in summer, 0.35 in the fall and
0.25 in winter (Attachment F).
Two Canada lynx were observed incidentally during other wildlife surveys
(Attachment C) and an average of 12.6 Canada lynx (range = 1 to 21) were
harvested annually from RFMAs overlapping the LSA during 2000 to 2009
(Volume 6, Section 3.4; Wu 2010, pers. comm.). Canada lynx harvest was
relatively high during 2000 to 2003, dropped during 2004 to 2006, and increased
again during 2007 to 2009. Variation in the number of Canada lynx harvested
presumably reflects the Canada lynx/hare cycle. Increasing harvests during 2007
to 2009 indicates that Canada lynx may be increasing towards a peak in their
population cycle.
3.3.1.2 Habitat
During the winter track count surveys in and around the LSA, Canada lynx tracks
were observed in a 13 different habitat types. However, 76 of the 127 tracks
Golder Associates
December 2010
were observed in shrubby bog (BONS) and wooded bog (BTNN) wetlands types.
Statistical analysis of local data found Canada lynx to prefer the shrubby bog
(BONS) wetlands type. Elsewhere in the Oil Sands Region, Canada lynx have
been detected in a variety of upland, wetlands and disturbed habitat types
Based on statistical analysis of regional data, Canada lynx generally prefer the
shrubby bog (BONS) wetlands type and low-bush cranberry aspen (d1) ecosite
phase (Attachment D, Table D-2).
3.3.2 Cougars
Cougars are considered “Secure” in Alberta (ASRD 2006, internet site).

Historically, cougars were primarily found in the Rocky Mountains and foothills
of western Alberta, but they have been increasing in number and expanding their
range over the past decade (Bacon et al. 2009; Knopff 2010). Cougars are
ecosystem generalists capable of occupying all manner of habitats provided
sufficient prey and cover are present. This is reflected in their distribution;
cougars occur contiguously from northern Canada to southern Chile and
Argentina, inhabiting mountains, temperate forests, deserts and jungles
(Hornocker and Negri 2009). Cougars may prefer riparian vegetation and forest
edge to other habitats, presumably because prey are more abundant in these areas
and good stalking cover is present (Dickson et al. 2005; Laundre and Hernandez
2003). Cougars tend to avoid open habitats such as grasslands that contain
minimal stalking cover if not associated with topographic complexity (Dickson
and Beier 2002). In North America, the primary prey of cougars is ungulates,
principally deer (Knopff et al. 2010). Consequently, ungulate abundance is an
important component of effective cougar habitat.
Although uncommon in the Oil Sands Region, cougars are occasionally detected.
For example, four cougar sightings occurred during the seismic program for
Suncor Energy Inc.’s (Suncor’s) Firebag In Situ Project (Suncor 2000).
Additional sightings include two cougars (a female and cub) observed in the
Birch Mountains in 2000, a cougar observed southwest of Fort McMurray in
2000 (Songhurst 2000, pers. comm.), and a cougar observed in the Christina
Lake Thermal Project area in 2003 (Golder 2004a). Cougars also have been
reported north of the Oil Sands Region in Wood Buffalo National Park (Gau et
al. 2001). Cougars may become more common in northeastern Alberta if
populations of deer continue to increase (Knopff 2010).

No cougars were detected during baseline surveys.
Golder Associates
December 2010
3.3.2.2 Habitat
Cougar habitat in northeastern Alberta remains largely undefined, but any
cougars that are present are likely to be associated with places where deer occur
at relatively high density.
3.4 BEARS
Bears in the region include black bears and grizzly bears.
3.4.1 Black Bears
Black bears are considered “Secure” in Alberta (ASRD 2006, internet site). They
occur throughout the Oil Sands Region, and are one of five CEMA-SEWG
wildlife indicators. More information on the social importance, conservation
status, and ecology of black bears in northeastern Alberta can be found in
Section 7.1.5.2.

Thirty photographs of black bears were taken at bait stations during spring and
52 were taken during the summer (Figure 15, Attachment F). The number of
days to first photo following camera set-up was 7.7 during spring and 8.7 during
summer. The photo rate was 0.06 during spring and 0.09 during summer. The
proportion of cameras with a black bear photo was 0.55 during the spring session
and 0.75 during the summer session.
Black bears and their sign were recorded incidentally during other terrestrial
surveys in the LSA (Attachment C), and a single black bear was trapped in
RFMAs overlapping the LSA during 2000 to 2009 (Wu 2010, pers. comm.).
Black bears are infrequently targeted by trappers in northeastern Alberta,
however, and the typical method of human harvest is through licensed hunting,
but numbers taken by hunters within the RSA and LSA are unavailable.
3.4.1.2 Habitat
Black bears in the region have been observed mostly in upland habitats
(Attachment E, Table E-12). Forb and shrub diversity is generally higher in
deciduous stands or recently disturbed areas. Westworth and Brusnyk (1982)
observed black bears most frequently in balsam poplar, mixedwood and white
spruce, and found that fen and willow wetlands were avoided. Black bears were
incidentally observed using Labrador tea–mesic jack pine-black spruce (c1),
Golder Associates
December 2010
dogwood balsam-poplar white spruce (e2), and shrubland (Sh) land cover types
and in a clearcut (CC).
3.4.2 Grizzly Bears
In June of 2010, grizzly bears were designated a “Threatened” species in Alberta

(ASRD 2010, internet site). The decision to change grizzly bear status was based
on population estimates indicating that the number of grizzly bears on provincial
lands in 2010 was 691, and on population models suggesting that this number
would likely decline over the next 30 to 40 years (ASRD and ACA 2010). Data
regarding the actual trend of Alberta’s grizzly bear population remains
unavailable. Grizzly bears are considered a species of “Special Concern”
federally by COSEWIC (Species at Risk Public Registry 2010, internet site).
Grizzly bears are capable of occupying diverse habitats and exploiting a wide
range of food resources (Hamer et al. 1991; Munro et al. 2006; Weaver et al.
1996). Although grizzly bears are carnivores and are unable to digest plant fibre,
they behave as opportunistic omnivores and can survive and even prosper on a
vegetarian diet (Rode et al. 2001).
Grizzly bears occur rarely in northeastern Alberta and are more typically found in
the Rocky Mountains and foothills of the western part of the province, with a
small population extending into the Swan Hills (ASRD and ACA 2010; Smith
1993). Nevertheless, grizzly bears were observed in the Oil Sands Region in
1998, 2000 and 2001 (Ramcharita 2001, pers. comm.). During the summer of
2001, grizzly bears were observed in the Conklin area (Tuttle 2001, pers.
comm.).

No grizzly bears or grizzly bear sign were observed during baseline wildlife
surveys.
3.4.2.2 Habitat
Grizzly bear habitat in the Oil Sands Region is poorly defined because grizzly
bears occur so rarely in northeastern Alberta. However, their habitat may be
similar to black bear habitat (Section3.4.1.2).
Golder Associates
December 2010
3.5 MUSTELIDS (WEASEL FAMILY)
Terrestrial mustelids in the region include wolverines, fishers, martens and

weasels (i.e., least weasels and short-tailed weasel). In addition, two
semi-aquatic mustelids, river otter and mink, are present.
3.5.1 Wolverines
Wolverines are federally listed as a species of “Special Concern” by COSEWIC

(2003) and currently have no status with SARA (Species at Risk Public Registry
2010, internet site). They are listed as “May Be at Risk” provincially (ASRD
2006, internet site).
Wolverines are elusive carnivores that occur at low density in the Oil Sands
Region. The only studies of wolverine ecology in similar habitat are from
lowland boreal forest habitat in northwestern Ontario where winter home ranges
averaged 1,450 km2 for males and 525 km2 for females (Magoun et al. 2005).
Movement corridors and habitat connectivity in the regional landscape are likely
important for this species. Wolverines are thought to prefer undisturbed areas of
coniferous forest (Pasitschniak-Arts and Lariviere 1995). They are particularly
sensitive to human disturbance and avoid disturbed areas (Banci 1994).
No wolverine tracks were observed during winter track count surveys in and
around the LSA. This finding is consistent with previous regional surveys,
reporting either no observations or few observations and low track densities.
Wolverine tracks have been observed elsewhere in the Oil Sands Region at a
density of 0.01 tracks/km-day to 0.02 tracks/km-day (Attachment E, Table E-13).
Four photographs of wolverines were taken; two during the spring and two
during the fall session. The average number of days to first photo was 15 in the
spring and 9.8 in the fall. The photo rate was 0.004 in the spring and 0.003 in the
fall. The proportion of cameras with a photo was 0.05 during both the spring and
fall sessions (Figure 15, Attachment F).
An average of 0.3 wolverines (range = 0 to 1) were harvested annually from

RFMAs overlapping the LSA during 2000 to 2009 (Wu 2010, pers. comm.).
Golder Associates
December 2010
3.5.1.2 Habitat
Wolverine track densities in the Oil Sands Region were highest on ice, followed
by the low-bush cranberry aspen-white spruce (d2) ecosite phase (Attachment D,
Table D-2).
3.5.2 Fishers and Martens

Fishers are listed provincially as “Sensitive” (ASRD 2006, internet site) and are
one of five CEMA-SEWG wildlife indicators. More information on the social
importance, conservation status, and ecology of fisher in northeastern Alberta can
be found in the Species of Concern section (Section 7.1.3.11).
Martens are designated as “Secure” in Alberta and are not listed federally.
Fishers are usually found in middle- to late-stage coniferous forests (Buskirk and
Ruggiero 1994; Powell and Zielinski 1994). Marten are thought to prefer the
same ecosite phases and wetlands types as fishers (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994;
Powell and Zielinski 1994).

Male fishers can be differentiated from female martens based on track
dimensions. However, a large amount of overlap exists in the track sizes of these
species (Halfpenny 2003, pers. comm.). Therefore, data collected as fisher,
marten or fisher/marten were combined for the analysis of tracking data. In and
around the LSA, a total of 320 combined fisher and marten track records were
recorded, for a density of 0.57 tracks/km-day (Figure 17; Attachment D,
Table D-1). Studies conducted within the Oil Sands Region found track densities
ranging between 0.97 tracks/km-day and 2.33 tracks/km-day (Attachment E,
Table E-14).
One photograph of a marten was obtained during each of the spring and summer
sessions, three were taken during the fall session and six photos were taken
during the winter session (Figure 15). The photo rate was 0.002 during both
spring and summer, 0.005 during fall and 0.009 during winter. The average
number of days to first photo for martens was 22 in the spring, 2 in the summer
and 15 in the winter. The proportion of cameras with a marten photo was 0.05
during spring, summer and fall and 0.1 during winter (Attachment F).
Golder Associates
I:\CLIENTS\AOSC\09-1346-1011\mapping\mxd\Wildlife\Baseline\Fig17_FisherMarten_Locations.mxd
400000 425000
Rg.16
Rg.18 Rg.17 Rg.15 Rg.14
W4M
Jo
s
ly
n
C
re
e
eek
k
Cr
ea
els
Ch
Tp.96
Ell
sR
ive
r
6350000
6350000
Tp.95
Sni p e Cre ek
Tp.94
er
Riv
Ells
Tp.93
6325000
6325000
k Riv
er
R iver
er
D ov
Tp.92
MacKay River
Bir
ch
wo
od Tp.91
Cr
eek
River
MacKay
6300000
6300000
Wh
Du is
nk
irk
Riv
er
Tp.90
Round Lak
Tp.89
400000 425000
LEGEND
10 0 10
TERRESTRIAL LOCAL STUDY AREA TRACK OBSERVATIONS
INDIAN RESERVE FISHER/MARTEN SCALE 1:250,000 KILOMETRES
OPEN WATER INCIDENTAL OBSERVATIONS
PROJECT
WATERCOURSE FISHER/MARTEN
DISTURBED
FISHER/MARTEN TRACK AND INCIDENTAL

TITLE
OBSERVATIONS IN AND AROUND THE
LOCAL STUDY AREA, 2008 THROUGH 2010
REFERENCE
FIGURE: 17
December 2010
Two fisher photographs were taken during each of the spring and winter sessions
and one was taken during the fall session (Figure 15). The average number of
days to first photo was 11.75 days in spring, 28.9 in the fall and 21.9 days in
winter. The photo rate was 0.004 during spring, 0.002 during the fall and 0.003
during winter. The proportion of cameras with a fisher photograph was 0.1
during both spring and winter and was 0.05 during the fall (Attachment F).
One fisher or marten (observation too brief to identify species) was observed
incidentally during the ungulate aerial survey, and an average of 7.8 marten
(range = 0 to 25) and 7.3 fisher (range = 3-11) were harvested annually from
RFMAs overlapping the LSA during 2000 to 2009 (Volume 6, Section 3.4;
Wu 2010, pers. comm.).
3.5.2.2 Habitat
The majority of fisher/marten tracks in and around the LSA were observed in the
wooded bog (BTNN) wetlands type, followed by Labrador tea-subhygric black
spruce-jack pine (g1), Labrador tea/horsetail white spruce-black spruce (h1) and
shrubby bog (BONS) ecosite phases and wetlands type. (Attachment D,
Table D-1). Regionally, fisher/marten tracks/km-day were highest on disturbed
sites and ice (Attachment D, Table D-2).
Within the Oil Sands Region, fisher/marten were found to prefer the low-bush
cranberry aspen (d1) ecosite phase, and were also found within low-bush
cranberry aspen (d1), low-bush cranberry aspen-white spruce (d2) and dogwood
white spruce (e3) ecosite phases (Attachment E, Table E-14). In general, marten
have been found to prefer mixed coniferous, riparian white spruce (Westworth,
Brusnyk and Associates 1996a), terrestrial coniferous (Westworth, Brusnyk and
Associates 1996b), wooded fen, jack pine/aspen and wooded bog habitats.
3.5.3 Weasels
Both short-tailed weasels and least weasels are considered “Secure” in Alberta
(ASRD 2006, internet site). The tracks of the two species are difficult to
differentiate and winter track counts represent a combined count for the two
species. Long-tailed weasels are listed provincially as “May Be at Risk” (ASRD
2006, internet site), but based on what is known of their distribution, they are
unlikely to occur in the RSA (Smith 1993).
In general, weasels prefer riparian, deciduous and early successional ecosite

phases and wetlands types, due in part to the abundance of small mammal prey
usually found in those areas (Banfield 1987).
Golder Associates
December 2010

Weasel tracks were recorded 116 times in and around the LSA during the winter
track count surveys, for an overall track density of 0.21 tracks/km-day
(Attachment D, Table D-1). This falls within the range of weasel track densities
reported in the Oil Sands Region (Attachment E, Table E-15). Track densities
from previous surveys varied widely, ranging from 0.21 tracks/km-day
(Shell 2007) to 1.59 tracks/km-day at Suncor Voyageur South (Golder 2007a).
No weasels were photographed at bait stations in the LSA.
An average of 23.4 weasels (range = 4 to 65) were harvested annually from

RFMAs overlapping the LSA during 2000 to 2009 (Volume 6, Section 3.4;
Wu 2010, pers. comm.).
3.5.3.2 Habitat
The majority of the weasel tracks observed in and around the LSA were found in
the wooded bog (BTNN) wetlands type, followed by wooded fen (FTNN) and
Labrador tea/horsetail black spruce-jack pine (h1) wetlands type and ecosite
phase (Attachment D, Table D-1). Regionally, weasel track densities were
highest along disturbed linear features (Attachment D, Table D-2).
3.5.4 Semi-Aquatic Mustelids
Semi-aquatic mustelids in the Oil Sands Region include river otter and mink.
Both are considered “Secure” in Alberta (ASRD 2006, internet site). They are
commonly found in and along watercourses and in wetlands (Pattie and Fisher
1999). They hunt a variety of small mammals and amphibians, and their diets,
especially that of otters, can include large amounts of fish.

Two river otters were detected incidentally during baseline surveys
(Attachment C). An average of 1.4 river otters (range = 0 to 4) were harvested
No mink were detected during baseline surveys. However, an average of

3.6 mink (range = 0 to 11) were harvested annually from RFMAs overlapping the
LSA during 2000 to 2009 (Volume 6, Section 3.4; Wu 2010, pers. comm.).
Golder Associates
December 2010
3.6 SEMI-AQUATIC RODENTS
Semi-aquatic rodents in the region include beavers and muskrats.
3.6.1 Beavers
Beavers are considered “Secure” in Alberta (ASRD 2006, internet site). More
information on the social importance, conservation status and ecology of beavers
in northeastern Alberta can be found in the Species of Concern section
(Section 7.1.5.1).

Over the 757 km of surveyed waterways and shoreline, and 1,543 ha of surveyed
lakes in and around the LSA, a total of 212 beaver lodges and 480 dams were
observed, of which 133 lodges and 297 dams appeared to be active. Beaver
lodge densities were 0.28 lodges/km of waterways and shoreline, while active
beaver lodge density was 0.18 lodges/km of waterways and shoreline. Four food
caches were recorded and five beavers were seen swimming.
This density of beaver activity falls within the range of densities reported for
other studies in the Oil Sands Region (0 to 1.6 active lodges per kilometre of
watercourse or hectare of lake; Attachment E, Table E-16). The observed levels
of beaver activity are generally low relative to other studies north of Fort
McMurray. Shell (Shell 2007) reported 0 to 0.53 active lodges/km of stream
over two years of surveys of varying intensity within the Pierre River Lease. On
the Total E&P Joslyn Ltd. (Total) Joslyn Mine Expansion lease, 0.75 active
lodges/km of watercourse were observed (unpublished data).
Four beavers were recorded incidentally in a graminoid marsh (MONG) and

shallow open water (WONN) during other wildlife surveys in the LSA
(Attachment C). An average of 40.8 beavers (range = 10 to 81) were harvested
Section 3.4; Wu 2010, pers. comm.). Beavers are among the most commonly
trapped animals in the LSA, along with squirrels and weasels.
3.6.1.2 Habitat
Beavers are found throughout the boreal forest. Beavers are expected to occur
along watercourses and in marshy areas near their preferred food items, including
aspen, birch and willow (Banfield 1987). Survey effort was focused on these
Golder Associates
December 2010
habits through flight routes that explored watercourses and waterbodies in and
around the LSA.
3.6.2 Muskrats
Muskrats are considered “Secure” in Alberta (ASRD 2006, internet site).

Muskrats were not recorded during aerial surveys or incidentally during field
surveys. However, an average of 20 muskrats (range = 0 to 48) were harvested
3.6.2.2 Habitat
Muskrats are found throughout the Oil Sands Region where shallow waterbodies
and slow-moving watercourses occur. The primary habitat requirements of
muskrats are sufficient aquatic and semi-aquatic plant growth to provide food
and cover and adequate water depths for winter foraging beneath the ice. These
requirements are met by a variety of wetlands types, especially where emergent
vegetation is present (Poll 1980; Todd 1978; Westworth and Associates 1979).
Emergent plants are used by muskrats for food and lodge construction
(Banfield 1987). In northeastern Alberta, graminoid marshes (MONG) best suit
the forage and habitat requirements of muskrats.
3.7 BATS
Bats occurring within the region include the hoary bat, silver-haired bat, red bat,
little brown bat and northern long-eared bat. The northern-long-eared bat is
classified as “May Be at Risk” in Alberta (ASRD 2006, internet site). The hoary
bat, silver-haired bat and red bat are listed as “Sensitive” provincially (ASRD 2006,
internet site). None are listed federally.
Golder Associates
December 2010

Bat surveys were conducted between July 31 and August 4, 2008, July 25 to 27
and 30 to 31, 2009, and July 21 to 23, 2010. Thirty mist-netting sites were
operated along cutlines in seven ecosite phases for a total of 382.3 mist-net hours
during bat surveys in and around the LSA (Figure 18, Table 7). Eighty-seven
bats were captured including 43 little-brown bats, 19 northern long-eared bats
and 25 silver-haired bats. Overall capture success was 0.23 bats per mist-net
hour. Capture success was similar to that reported by other projects in the area.
For example, the Shell Pierre River Mine Project reported a capture success of
0.26 bats per mist-net hour (Attachment E; Table E-22).
In 2008, 2009 and 2010, 66 call detection plots were surveyed in 15 ecosite
phase/wetlands types for a total of 380 detector hours (Table 8). Nine
species/species groups were identified based on call analysis (Tables 8 and 9).
Bats that could not be identified to a species or species group were classified as
“unknown”.
Bats were detected at an overall frequency of 3.3 passes/hr and 0.2 feeding
buzzes/hr during the 380 hours of monitoring (Tables 8 and 9). Little brown bats
were the most frequently detected (1.3 passes/hr), followed by big
brown/silver-haired bats and high frequency bats, (0.6 passes/hr each). Foraging
activity, as represented by feeding buzzes, was detected for all species/species
groups except the red bat and silver-haired bat. The most frequent foraging
activity was detected for little brown bats at 0.2 feeding buzzes/hr. Relative
activity was lower than that reported by Shell for the Pierre River Mine Project
(15.9 passes/hr; Shell 2007) and by Suncor for the Voyageur South Project
(13.7 passes/hr; Suncor 2007).
Golder Associates
I:\CLIENTS\AOSC\09-1346-1011\mapping\mxd\Wildlife\Baseline\Fig18_BatSpecies_ofConcern .mxd
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
Rg.19 Rg.18 Rg.17 Rg.16

W4M
Jo
s
6360000
6360000
ly
n
C
re
e
k
k
ree
aC
e lse
Ch
Tp.96
E ll
sR
iv e
r
6350000
6350000
Tp.95
6340000
6340000
Sni p e C re ek
Tp.94
r
iv e
sR
E ll
6330000
6330000
Tp.93

k Riv
er
ver
Ri
er
ov
6320000
6320000
D
Tp.92
MacKay River
6310000
Bi
rch
6310000
wo
od Tp.91
C
r ee
k
River
MacKay
6300000
6300000
Wh
Du i sk
nk ey
ir k
Ri v
er
Tp.90
Round La
6290000
6290000
Tp.89
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000

LEGEND
BAT SPECIES
10 0 10
INDIAN RESERVE HOARY BAT SCALE 1:250,000 KILOMETRES
OPEN WATER NORTHERN LONG-EARED BAT
PROJECT
WATERCOURSE RED BAT
DISTURBED SILVER HAIRED BAT DOVER COMMERCIAL PROJECT
BAT SPECIES OF CONCERN OBSERVED
AND INDUSTRIAL DISTURBANCE TITLE

IN AND AROUND THE LOCAL STUDY AREA
DURING BAT SURVEYS, 2008 THROUGH 2010
REFERENCE
FIGURE: 18
GIS JH 22 Nov. 2010
CHECK VBS 28 Nov. 2010
FIRST NATIONS RESERVES OBTAINED FROM IHS Energy Inc.
December 2010
Table 7 Survey Effort and Capture Success for Ecosite Phases Sampled During Bat Surveys In and Around the
Local Study Area, 2008, 2009 and 2010
(b)
Survey Effort Captures
(a)
Ecosite Phase Mist-net Mist-net Little Brown Bat Northern Long-eared Bat Silver-haired Bat
(c) Total
Plots Hours
Female Male Unknown Female Male Female Male
1 A, NR
blueberry jack pine-aspen b1-dist 4 79.8 3 J, NR 1 A, NR 0 1 J, NR 0 2 J, NR 10
2 J NR
blueberry aspen (white
b2-dist 1 4.3 0 0 0 1 A, NR 0 0 0 1
birch)
blueberry white
b4-dist 1 32.9 0 0 0 0 0 1 J NR 0 1
spruce--jack pine
low-bush cranberry aspen
d1-dist 2 37.7 2 J, NR 0 0 2 A, NR 1 A, NR 0 0 5
cutline
7 A, NR 6 A, NR 1, A, Lac
low-bush cranberry 3 A, NR 2 A, NR
d2-dist 18 145.8 8 A, NR 5 J, NR 1 2 A, NR 8 J, NR 56
aspen-white spruce 4 A, R 1 J, NR
1 J, NR 1 A, Unk 6 J, NR
low-bush cranberry white 2 A, NR 2 A, NR
d3-dist 3 47.5 0 0 1 A, NR 1 J, NR 0 8
spruce 1AR 1M, Unk
dogwood balsam poplar– 2 A, NR
e2-dist 1 34.3 2 J, NR 0 0 0 0 1 J, NR 6
white spruce 1AR
Total 30 382.3 27 15 1 12 7 14 11 87
(a)
Beckingham and Archibald (1996).
(b)
A = adult; J = juvenile; Lac = lactating; R = reproductively active; NR = not reproductively active this season; and Unk = unknown reproductive status.
(c)
Mist-net hours were calculated based on the number of active hours per 6-m-wide net. For example, a single 6-m-wide net open for two hours equals two mist net
hours, or a double-high 6-m-wide net open for two hours equals four mist net hours.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table 8 Number of Passes Produced by Bats Detected In and Around the Local Study Area, 2008, 2009 and 2010
Big Brown/ High Little Brown/
Little Brown Low Frequency Northern Long- Silver-haired
Detector Silver-haired Frequency Hoary Bat (d) Northern Long- (f) (d) Red Bat Unknown All Bat Species
(a) (b) (c) Bat (e) Bat eared Bat Bat
Ecosite Phase/Wetlands Type Bat Bat eared Bat
Number
Hours Passes/hr Passes/hr Passes/hr Passes/hr Passes/hr Passes/hr Passes/hr Passes/hr Passes/hr Passes/hr Passes/hr
of Plots
Blueberry jack pine–aspen b1 2 85.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.9
blueberry aspen (white birch) b2 1 10.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.5
blueberry aspen–white spruce b3 3 0.5 2.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0
blueberry white spruce-jack pine b4 1 5.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2
wooded bog BTNN 8 25.6 0.1 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8
wooded bog with collapse scar BTXC 3 18.5 0.4 1.1 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 2.8
burned upland BUu 3 23.5 0.6 1.1 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.3
Labrador tea–mesic jack pine–black spruce c1 2 7.8 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6
low-bush cranberry aspen d1 9 65.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6
low-bush cranberry aspen-white spruce d2 17 91.2 1.6 1.3 0.2 3.5 1.1 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 8.7
low-bush cranberry white spruce d3 4 16.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.1
dogwood white spruce e3 1 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4
wooded fen FTNN 5 8.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5
Labrador tea–subhygric black spruce–jack pine g1 3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4
Labrador tea/horsetail white spruce–black spruce h1 4 10.1 0.3 0.5 0.2 1.8 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 3.7
Overall Frequency 66 380.0 0.6 0.6 0.1 1.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.1 3.3
(a)
Beckingham and Archibald (1996); Halsey et al. (2003).
(b)
Due to overlap in call characteristics, big brown and silver-haired bats could not always be differentiated, however silver-haired bats are more likely to occur in the area than big brown bats.
(c)
Due to overlap in call characteristics, red, little brown and northern long-eared bats could not always be differentiated. Red bats were not caught during mist net surveys, but they are known to occur in the area.
(d)
Due to the conservation status of M. septentrionalis, if a pass was not clearly long-eared in nature, this pass was placed into the M. lucifugus category; as such the long-eared category M. septentrionalis may be an underestimate of the actual number of passes, and M. lucifugus may be an
over-estimate.
(e)
Due to overlap in call characteristics, little brown and northern long-eared bats could not always be differentiated.
(f)
Due to overlap in call characteristics, hoary, big brown and silver-haired bats could not always be differentiated; however, hoary and silver-haired bats are more likely to occur in the area than big brown bats.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table 9 Number of Feeding Buzzes Produced by Bats Detected In and Around the Local Study Area, 2008, 2009 and 2010
Big Brown/ High Little Brown/
Little Brown Low Frequency Northern Long- Silver-haired
Detector Silver-haired Frequency Hoary Bat Northern Long- (e) Red Bat Unknown All Bat Species
(a) (b) (c) Bat (d) Bat eared Bat Bat
Ecosite Phase/Wetlands Type Bat Bat eared Bat
Number
Hours Buzzes/hr Buzzes/hr Buzzes/hr Buzzes/hr Buzzes/hr Buzzes/hr Buzzes/hr Buzzes/hr Buzzes/hr Buzzes/hr Buzzes/hr
of Plots
Blueberry jack pine–aspen b1 2 85.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
blueberry aspen (white birch) b2 1 10.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
blueberry aspen–white spruce b3 3 0.5 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0
blueberry white spruce-jack pine b4 1 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
wooded bog BTNN 8 25.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
wooded bog with collapse scar BTXC 3 18.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
burned upland BUu 3 23.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Labrador tea–mesic jack pine–black spruce c1 2 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
low-bush cranberry aspen d1 9 65.3 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
low-bush cranberry aspen-white spruce d2 17 91.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7
low-bush cranberry white spruce d3 4 16.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
dogwood white spruce e3 1 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
wooded fen FTNN 5 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Labrador tea–subhygric black spruce–jack pine g1 3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4
Labrador tea/horsetail white spruce–black spruce h1 4 10.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
Overall Frequency 66 380.0 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
(a)
(b)
Due to overlap in call characteristics, big brown and silver-haired bats could not always be differentiated, however silver-haired bats are more likely to occur in the area than big brown bats.
(c)
Due to overlap in call characteristics, red, little brown and northern long-eared bats could not always be differentiated. Red bats were not caught during mist net surveys, but they are known to occur in the area.
(d)
Due to overlap in call characteristics, little brown and northern long-eared bats could not always be differentiated.
(e)
Due to overlap in call characteristics, hoary, big brown and silver-haired bats could not always be differentiated, however hoary and silver-haired bats are more likely to occur in the area than big brown bat
Golder Associates
December 2010
3.7.1.2 Habitat
Bats generally prefer mature aspen and white spruce forests for both foraging and
roosting habitat in the boreal forest (Crampton and Barclay 1998). Previous
studies in the Oil Sands Region also indicate that bats are often detected in
mixedwood habitats (Attachment E, Table E-22). They are also frequently
detected in wetlands, which may provide good foraging habitat due to the
presence of insects. Other studies suggest that little brown bats prefer to forage
along the edge of clear-cuts and silver-haired bats prefer open habitat and avoid
intact forest (Patriquin 2001). In contrast, northern long-eared bats are thought to
prefer to forage in intact forest and avoid open habitat (Patriquin 2001). Results
from bat surveys in and around the LSA are consistent with the literature.
The majority of bat captures occurred in the low-bush cranberry aspen–white

spruce (d2) ecosite phase followed by the blueberry jack pine–aspen (b1),
low-bush cranberry white spruce (d3), dogwood balsam poplar–white spruce (e2)
and low-bush cranberry aspen (d1) ecosite phases (Table 7). Eight unknown bat
species were recorded incidentally in the wooded bog (BTNN) and wooded fen
(FTNN) wetlands types and the blueberry aspen–white spruce (b3) and low-bush
cranberry aspen–white spruce (d2) ecosite phases during bat surveys conducted
in and around the LSA (Attachment C).
The highest bat activity (passes) was recorded in the blueberry aspen–white
spruce (b3) ecosite phase (12 passes/hr), followed by the low-bush cranberry
aspen–white spruce (d2) ecosite phase (8.7 passes/hr; Table 8). The greatest
foraging activity was recorded in the blueberry aspen–white spruce (b3) ecosite
phase (4.0 buzzes/hr), followed by the Labrador tea–subhygric black spruce–jack
pine (g1) ecosite phase (2.4 buzzes/hr; Table 9).
Golder Associates
December 2010
4 RESULTS – BIRDS
Avian surveys were conducted in and around the LSA targeting three specific
groups of birds: owls, marsh birds and breeding birds.
4.1 OWLS
Owls are birds of prey that typically hunt at night, although many species
occasionally hunt during the day and a few species are diurnal (e.g., northern
hawk owls). Owls in northeastern Alberta depend primarily on small rodents for
food and most species are closely tied to mature forested habitats, especially for
nesting (Semenchuk 1992). Species present in the Oil Sands Region include
great horned owls, great grey owls, barred owls, northern hawk owls, long-eared
owls, northern saw-whet owls, short-eared owls, boreal owls and northern pygmy
owls. Short-eared owls are listed provincially as “May Be at Risk” and federally
as “Special Concern” by COSEWIC (2008) and “Schedule 3: Special Concern”
by SARA (Species at Risk Public Registry 2010, internet site), while the barred
owl, great grey owl, northern hawk owl and northern pygmy owl are provincially
listed as “Sensitive” (ASRD 2006, internet site). Sensitivity to industrial activity
and deforestation varies among owl species. Great horned owls, for instance,
prefer heterogeneous landscapes consisting of forest patches and deforested
areas, whereas barred owls may require larger patches of contiguous forest
(Grossman et al. 2008).

Owl surveys were conducted at 37 plots in 17 habitat types within and around the
LSA during April 13 to 17, 2010 (Figure 19, Table 10). Twenty-nine owls
comprising three different species were documented including 21 boreal owls,
two barred owls and six great horned owls. Owl detections ranged from 0 to
3 owls per plot, with an average detection density of 0.7 owls per plot. Detected
species richness ranged from 0 to 2 owl species per plot with an average of
0.7 species per plot. Incidental observations of owls during other ground-based
wildlife surveys included three great grey owls, two barred owls, one great
horned owl, and an owl that could not be identified to species (Attachment C).
Golder Associates
I:\CLIENTS\AOSC\09-1346-1011\mapping\mxd\Wildlife\Baseline\Fig19_OwlsObserved.mxd
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
Rg.16
Rg.18 Rg.17 Rg.15 Rg.14
Tp.97 Rg.13
W4M
Jo
s
6360000
6360000
ly
n
C
re
e
k
k
ree
e aC
els
Ch
Tp.96
E ll
sR
iv e
r
6350000
6350000
Tp.95
6340000
6340000
S ni p e Cre ek
Tp.94
r
iv e
sR
E ll
6330000
6330000
Tp.93

k Riv
er
ver
r Ri
ve
6320000
6320000
Do
Tp.92
MacKay River
6310000
6310000
Bi
rch
wo
od Tp.91
C
re e
k
River
MacKay
6300000
6300000
Wh
Du i sk
nk
ir k
Ri v
er
Tp.90
Round Lake
6290000
6290000
Tp.89
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000

LEGEND
10 0 10
TERRESTRIAL LOCAL STUDY AREA OWL SPECIES
INDIAN RESERVE BARRED OWL SCALE 1:250,000 KILOMETRES
OPEN WATER BOREAL OWL
PROJECT
WATERCOURSE GREAT HORNED OWL
DISTURBED
OWLS OBSERVED IN THE LOCAL STUDY

TITLE
AREA DURING OWL SURVEYS, 2010

REFERENCE
FIGURE: 19
December 2010
Table 10 Habitat Types at Owl Survey Plot Locations In and Around the Local
Study Area
(a)
Ecosite Phase/Wetlands Type Map Code Number of Plots
Upland
Labrador tea–mesic jack pine–black spruce c1 3
low-bush cranberry aspen d1 6
low-bush cranberry aspen-white spruce d2 2
Labrador tea–black spruce-jack pine g1 2
shrubland Sh 2
Wetlands
open permafrost bog BOXC 1
wooded bog BTNN 5
wooded bog with internal lawns with islands of forested peat plateau BTNR 1
wooded permafrost bog with collapse scars BTXC 2
wooded permafrost bog no internal lawns BTXN 3
burned upland BUu 2
shrubby fen FONS 1
wooded fen with internal lawns FTNI 2
wooded fen FTNN 2
wooded swamp STNN 1
Other
disturbed DIS 2
Total 37
(a)
Species that do not respond readily to call playbacks (e.g., short-eared owls) are
under-represented using playback surveys. Systematic surveys for diurnal owls
in forested landscapes have not been developed and diurnal species, such as the
northern hawk owl, are also under-represented. The species that were identified
during baseline surveys for the Project (i.e., boreal owls, great horned owls and
barred owls) were the most commonly identified species in other owl surveys
conducted in the Oil Sands Region (Attachment E; Table E-24).
4.1.1.2 Habitat
The habitat type occupied by owls detected during nocturnal surveys was
estimated by intersecting owl locations with ecosite phase/wetlands type maps in
GIS. Thirteen ecosite phases and wetlands types were occupied by owls detected
during baseline surveys, and owls were most frequently detected in upland
habitats (Table 11). However, other surveys conducted in the Oil Sands Region
found that most owls occurred in wetlands, including shrubby fens (FONS),
wooded fens (FTNN), wooded swamps (STNN) and wooded bogs (BTNN;
Attachment E, Table E-24). Although these results indicate that owls use a
variety of habitats in northern boreal forests, they do not permit ranking the
relative importance of different habitat types for owls.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table 11 Owls Recorded In the Local Study Area by Habitat Type, 2008
(a) Owl Observations
Ecosite Phase/Wetlands Type
Barred Owl Boreal Owl Great Horned Owl
Upland
Labrador tea–mesic jack pine–black spruce c1 - 3 1
low-bush cranberry aspen d1 1 1 -
low-bush cranberry aspen-white spruce d2 1 2 1
low-bush cranberry white spruce d3 - 1 -
dogwood balsam poplar-aspen e1 - 1 -
Labrador tea–black spruce-jack pine g1 - 2 2
Wetlands
wooded bog BTNN - 4 -
wooded bog with internal lawns with islands
BTNR - 1 -
of forested peat plateau
wooded permafrost bog BTXC - 1 -
shrubby fen FONS - 1 1
wooded fen FTNN - 2 1
shrubby swamp SONS - 1 -
wooded swamp STNN - 1 -
Total Number of Detections 2 21 6
(a)
- = No observations recorded.
4.2 MARSH BIRDS
Marsh birds are useful indicator species for assessing wetlands ecosystem
integrity (Conway 2009). Eleven species of marsh birds in Alberta are listed
provincially as “Sensitive” or status “Undetermined”. “Sensitive” species
include the American bittern, great blue heron, black-crowned night heron,
pied-billed grebe, horned grebe, western grebe, sora, black tern and sandhill
crane (ASRD 2006, internet site). The status of yellow rails and Virginia rails
are “Undetermined” in Alberta (ASRD 2006, internet site). Of the provincially
listed species, only yellow rails are currently listed federally, where they are
considered a species of “Special Concern” by COSEWIC (2001) and are
included on “Schedule 1: Special Concern” under SARA (Species at Risk Public
Registry 2010, internet site).
Yellow rails and Virginia rails are inconspicuous marsh birds that are apparently
rare in Alberta, but very little is known about their distribution, populations, or
other traits in the province (Prescott et al. 2001). Soras, in contrast, are the most
abundant and widely distributed rail in Canada and are the most commonly
detected marsh bird in the Oil Sands Region (Attachment E, Table E-28). Soras
are often found in relatively shallow portions of wetlands where water level
instability produces diverse mosaics of fine and robust emergent vegetation
(Melvin and Gibbs 1996).
Golder Associates
December 2010
American bitterns use tall, emergent vegetation. They are found in wetlands of
all sizes but tend to be more abundant on larger wetlands, and prefer
impoundments and beaver-created wetlands to wetlands of glacial origin
(Gibbs et al. 1992).
The pied-billed grebe is the most common grebe in North America. Pied-billed
grebes tend to be found on wetlands containing open water with substantial and
dense emergent vegetation near shore (Osnas 2003; Semenchuk 1992). Several
surveys in the Oil Sands Region have detected pied-billed grebes (Attachment E,
Table E-28).

Marsh bird surveys were conducted at 22 plots during June 2 to 5, 2010, and
yellow rail surveys were conducted at an additional 25 plots on July 7
and 8, 2010 (Figure 20). One sora was detected during marsh bird surveys and
one yellow rail was detected during the yellow rail surveys (Tables 12 and 13).
No Virginia rails, American bitterns or pied-billed grebes were identified during

marsh bird surveys, but three American bitterns were detected incidentally during
other ground-based surveys (Attachment C).
Several other birds associated with marshes were incidentally identified within
and around the LSA including six sandhill cranes, two soras, 10 Wilson’s snipes,
one unidentified plover species, and two lesser yellowlegs (Attachment C).
4.2.1.2 Habitat
Nine wetlands types were sampled during general marsh bird surveys and three
were sampled during yellow rail surveys (Tables 12 and 13). Both the sora and
the yellow rail detected during formal surveys were located in shrubby fen
(FONS) habitat.
Golder Associates
I:\CLIENTS\AOSC\09-1346-1011\mapping\mxd\Wildlife\Baseline\Fig20_MarshBird_and_YellowRail_Observed.mxd
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
Rg.19 Rg.18 Rg.17 Rg.16

W4M
Jo
s
6360000
6360000
ly
n
C
re
e
k
k
ree
aC
e lse
Ch
Tp.96
E ll
sR
iv e
r
6350000
6350000
Tp.95
6340000
6340000
Sni p e C re ek
Tp.94
r
iv e
sR
E ll
6330000
6330000
Tp.93

k Riv
er
iv e r
rR
ve
6320000
6320000
Do
Tp.92
MacKay River
6310000
Bi
rch
6310000
wo
od Tp.91
C
r ee
k
River
MacKay
6300000
6300000
Wh
Du is
nk
ir k
Ri v
er
Tp.90
Round Lak
6290000
6290000
Tp.89
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000

LEGEND
10 0 10
TERRESTRIAL LOCAL STUDY AREA SORA OBSERVATION
INDIAN RESERVE YELLOW RAIL OBSERVATION SCALE 1:250,000 KILOMETRES
OPEN WATER
PROJECT
WATERCOURSE
MARSH BIRDS AND YELLOW RAILS OBSERVED

TITLE
IN THE LOCAL STUDY AREA DURING

MARSH BIRD AND YELLOW RAIL SURVEYS, 2010

REFERENCE
FIGURE: 20
GIS JH 12 Nov. 2010
December 2010
Table 12 Marsh Birds Detected by Wetlands Type During Marsh Bird Surveys
In the Local Study Area
Number of Detections
(a) Number
Wetlands Types Code
of Plots American Pied-billed
Sora Yellow Rail Virgina Rail
Bittern Grebe
shrubby bog BONS 1 0 0 0 0 0
wooded bog BTNN 1 0 0 0 0 0
burned wetlands BUw 1 0 0 0 0 0
graminoid fen FONG 4 0 0 0 0 0
shrubby fen FONS 8 1 0 0 0 0
wooded fen FTNN 1 0 0 0 0 0
graminoid marsh MONG 1 0 0 0 0 0
shrubby swamp SONS 2 0 0 0 0 0
wooded swamp STNN 3 0 0 0 0 0
Total 22 1 0 0 0 0
(a)
Halsey et al. (2003).
Table 13 Yellow Rails Detected by Wetlands Type During Yellow Rail Surveys
In the Local Study Area
(a) Number of Detections

Wetlands Types Code Number of Plots
Yellow rail
graminoid fen FONG 6 0
shrubby fen FONS 17 1
graminoid marsh MONG 2 0
Total 25 1
(a)
Halsey et al. (2003).
4.3 BREEDING BIRD COMMUNITIES
Breeding bird communities include a number of species of concern as a result of

their provincial (ASRD 2010, internet site) or federal (Species at Risk Public
Registry 2010, internet site) listing. Those that may be observed during breeding
bird surveys include:
 bay-breasted warbler;
 black-backed woodpecker;
 black-throated green warbler;
 brown creeper;
 Canada warbler;
 Cape May warbler;
Golder Associates
December 2010
 common nighthawk;
 common yellowthroat;
 eastern phoebe;
 least flycatcher;
 olive-sided flycatcher;
 pileated woodpecker;
 rusty blackbird; and
 western tanager.
All of the above listed species are provincially listed at “Sensitive”. In addition,
the Canada warbler, common nighthawk and olive-sided flycatcher are federally
listed as “Threatened” by COSEWIC (2009, internet site) and as “Schedule 1:
Threatened” by SARA (Species at Risk Public Registry 2010, internet site). The
rusty blackbird is federally listed as “Special Concern” by COSEWIC (2009,
internet site) and as “Schedule 1: Special Concern” by SARA (Species at Risk
Public Registry 2010, internet site).
Sample Plot Summary

Breeding bird surveys were completed in and around the LSA during June 19
to 27, 2008 and June 9 to 11, 2010. In total, 236 point counts were completed in
17 ecosite phases, nine wetlands types and three disturbed habitat types. Plots
were centred on these ecosite phases and wetlands types, and to the extent
possible, habitat within a point count radius was homogenous.
Breeding bird survey plots were placed to be representative of the proportional

distribution of ecosite phases and wetlands types in and around the LSA, while
also taking care to represent a wide range of habitat types and habitat types where
listed species are more likely to be found (Table 14). Of the vegetation types
found in and around the LSA, only disturbed areas were under-represented.
Disturbed areas are always under-represented in breeding bird surveys because
sample points are established a minimum of 100 m from roads and a minimum of
50 m from cutlines (Section 2.1.8).
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table 14 Breeding Bird Point Counts Habitat Types In and Around the Local
Study Area, 2008 and 2010
Sample Plots
(a)
Map Code Vegetation Type Number of % of Total
Plots Plots
Ecosite Phase
a1 lichen jack pine 8 3
b1 blueberry jackpine-aspen 16 7
b2 blueberry aspen-white birch 1 <1
b3 blueberry aspen-white spruce 4 2
b4 blueberry white spruce-jack pine 3 1
c1 Labrador tea–mesic jack pine-black spruce 14 6
d1 low-bush cranberry aspen 13 5
d2 low-bush cranberry aspen-white spruce 27 11
d3 low-bush cranberry white spruce 9 4
e1 dogwood balsam poplar-aspen 2 <1
e2 dogwood balsam poplar-white spruce 2 <1
e3 dogwood white spruce 4 2
f1 horsetail balsam poplar-aspen 1 <1
f2 horsetail balsam poplar-white spruce 1 <1
f3 horsetail white spruce 2 <1
g1 Labrador tea–subhygric black spruce-jack pine 10 4
h1 Labrador tea/horesetail white spruce-black spruce 5 2
subtotal 122 52
Wetlands Type
BONS shrubby bog 3 1
BTNN wooded bog 33 14
FONG graminoid fen 5 2
FONS shrubby fen 28 12
FTNN wooded fen 30 13
MONG graminoid marsh 2 <1
SONS shrubby swamp 5 2
STNN wooded swamp 4 2
subtotal 110 47
Disturbed Habitat
BUu burned upland 2 <1
CC clearcut 1 <1
Me meadow 1 <1
subtotal 4 1.7
Total 236 100
(a)
Note: Some numbers are rounded for presentation purposes. Therefore, it may appear that the totals do not equal the
sum of the individual values.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Bird Species Present

Sixty-three bird species and 722 individual birds were recorded within breeding
bird plots in and around the LSA (Table 15). The seven most commonly
observed species comprised 52% of all observations. Tennessee warbler was the
most commonly detected species, followed by (in order of decreasing detection
frequency) yellow-rumped warbler, dark-eyed junco, chipping sparrow, palm
warbler, ovenbird and Cape May warbler.
Incidental records of bird species listed as species of concern either provincially

or federally were common nighthawk and pileated woodpecker. A complete
record of all bird species recorded incidentally can be found in Appendix C.
Eight of the 14 birds of concern listed in Section 4.3 were recorded in and around
the LSA as follows (Figure 21):
 Twenty-eight Cape May warblers were detected predominantly in

conifer and mixedwood ecosite phases.
 Sixteen common yellowthroats were detected predominantly in fen
wetlands types.
 Thirteen bay-breasted warblers were detected predominantly in
mixedwood and conifer ecosite phases. No bay-breasted warblers were
recorded in wetlands types.
 Thirteen least flycatchers were detected predominantly in the deciduous,
mixedwood and fen or bog ecosite phases and wetlands types.
 Eight western tanager were detected predominantly in the low-bush
cranberry aspen-white spruce (d2) ecosite phase.
 Three olive-sided flycatchers were detected in wetlands types only.
 Four brown creepers were detected in the low bush cranberry ecosite.
 One black-throated green warbler was detected in a horsetail balsam
poplar white spruce (f2) ecosite phase.
In addition, one chestnut collared longspur was detected in a shrubby fen

(FONS). This species is native to the prairies of North America and historically
breed at sites grazed by bison (Hill 1997). They still prefer heavily grazed
pastures, and sometimes nest in cultivated fields if the vegetation is short; but
they avoid tall vegetation and wet areas. In Alberta, nesting is restricted to the
Grassland Natural Region but vagrants have been reported as far north as Fort
McKay (Semenchuk 1992). Therefore, the single observation in the LSA likely
represents a vagrant.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table 15 Breeding Bird Detections In and Around the Local Study Area, 2008
and 2010
Breeding Number of
Total Number of Provincial Federal
Species Bird Density Habitat Types (a) (b)
Observations Status Status
per Point With Species
Tennessee Warbler 161 0.61 27 Secure n/a
yellow-rumped warbler 54 0.23 16 Secure n/a
dark-eyed junco 43 0.18 13 Secure n/a
chipping sparrow 32 0.14 16 Secure n/a
palm warbler 31 0.13 7 Secure n/a
ovenbird 28 0.12 8 Secure n/a
Cape May Warbler 28 0.12 13 Sensitive n/a
Lincoln's sparrow 23 0.10 6 Secure n/a
magnolia warbler 20 0.08 6 Secure n/a
swamp sparrow 19 0.08 5 Secure n/a
orange-crowned warbler 19 0.08 11 Secure n/a
common yellowthroat 16 0.07 6 Sensitive n/a
gray jay 14 0.06 5 Secure n/a
least flycatcher 13 0.06 10 Sensitive n/a
bay-breasted warbler 13 0.06 7 Sensitive n/a
white-throated sparrow 12 0.05 6 Secure n/a
Le Conte's sparrow 12 0.05 4 Secure n/a
black-and-white warbler 11 0.05 8 Secure n/a
hermit thrush 10 0.04 6 Secure n/a
blue-headed vireo 10 0.04 4 Secure n/a
red-breasted nuthatch 10 0.04 5 Secure n/a
ruby-crowned kinglet 10 0.04 5 Secure n/a
clay-colored sparrow 9 0.04 4 Secure n/a
alder flycatcher 9 0.04 2 Secure n/a
western tanager 8 0.03 3 Sensitive n/a
Swainson's thrush 8 0.03 6 Secure n/a
red-eyed vireo 8 0.03 4 Secure n/a
blackpoll warbler 8 0.03 5 Secure n/a
yellow warbler 8 0.03 5 Secure n/a
American redstart 6 0.03 4 Secure n/a
yellow-bellied flycatcher 5 0.02 3 Secure n/a
cedar waxwing 5 0.02 3 Secure n/a
black-capped chickadee 4 0.02 4 Secure n/a
Connecticut warbler 4 0.02 3 Secure n/a
winter wren 3 0.01 3 Secure n/a
red-winged blackbird 3 0.01 3 Secure n/a
olive-sided flycatcher 3 0.01 3 Secure Threatened
northern waterthrush 3 0.01 2 Secure n/a
mourning warbler 3 0.01 2 Secure n/a
brown creeper 3 0.01 2 Sensitive n/a
white-winged crossbill 3 0.01 2 Secure n/a
Wilson’s warbler 3 0.01 2 Secure n/a
yellow-bellied sapsucker 2 <0.01 1 Secure n/a
song sparrow 2 <0.01 2 Secure n/a
Say’s phoebe 2 <0.01 2 Secure n/a
rose-breasted grosbeak 2 <0.01 2 Secure n/a
Philadelphia vireo 2 <0.01 2 Secure n/a
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table 15 Breeding Bird Detections In and Around the Local Study Area, 2008
and 2010 (continued)
Breeding Number of
Total Number of Provincial Federal
Species Bird Density Habitat Types (a) (b)
Observations Status Status
per Point With Species
marsh wren 2 <0.01 1 Secure n/a
fox sparrow 2 <0.01 2 Secure n/a
eastern kingbird 2 <0.01 1 Secure n/a
American robin 2 <0.01 2 Secure n/a
western wood pee-wee 1 <0.01 1 Secure n/a
warbling vireo 1 <0.01 1 Secure n/a
tree swallow 1 <0.01 1 Secure n/a
pine siskin 1 <0.01 1 Secure n/a
hairy woodpecker 1 <0.01 1 Secure n/a
golden-crowned kinglet 1 <0.01 1 Secure n/a
(c)
chestnut-collared longspur 1 <0.01 1 Secure Threatened
black-throated green warbler 1 <0.01 1 Sensitive n/a
Total 722 3.05 n/a n/a n/a
(a)
ASRD (2006, internet site).
(b)
Species at Risk Public Registry (2010, internet site).
(c)
In Alberta, nesting is restricted to the Grassland Natural Region but vagrants have been reported as far north as Fort
McKay (Semenchuk 1992). Therefore, the single observation in the LSA likely represents a vagrant.
n/a = Not applicable.
Note: Some numbers are rounded for presentation purposes. Therefore, it may appear that the totals do not equal the
sum of the individual values.
Golder Associates
I:\CLIENTS\AOSC\09-1346-1011\mapping\mxd\Wildlife\Baseline\Fig21_BreedingBirdSpecies_ofConcernObserved .mxd
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
Rg.19 Rg.18 Rg.17 Rg.16

W4M
Jo
s
6360000
6360000
ly
n
C
re
e
k
k
ree
aC
e lse
Ch
Tp.96
E ll
sR
iv e
r
6350000
6350000
Tp.95
6340000
6340000
Sni p e C re ek
Tp.94
r
iv e
sR
E ll
6330000
6330000
Tp.93

k Riv
er
ver
Ri
er
ov
6320000
6320000
D
Tp.92
MacKay River
6310000
Bi
rch
6310000
wo
od Tp.91
C
r ee
k
River
MacKay
6300000
6300000
Wh
Du i sk
nk ey
ir k
Ri v
er
Tp.90
Round
6290000
6290000
Tp.89
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000

LEGEND
BREEDING BIRD SPECIES
10 0 10
INDIAN RESERVE BAY-BREASTED WARBLER SCALE 1:250,000 KILOMETRES
OPEN WATER BLACK-THROATED GREEN WARBLER
PROJECT
WATERCOURSE BROWN CREEPER
DISTURBED CAPE MAY WARBLER DOVER COMMERCIAL PROJECT
EXISTING AND APPROVED URBAN CHESTNUT-COLLARED LONGSPUR
BREEDING BIRD SPECIES OF CONCERN OBSERVED

TITLE
COMMON YELLOWTHROAT
IN AND AROUND THE LOCAL STUDY AREA DURING
LEAST FLYCATCHER
BREEDING BIRD SURVEYS, 2008 AND 2010
OLIVE-SIDED FLYCATCHER
WESTERN TANAGER
REFERENCE
FIGURE: 21
GIS JH 22 Nov. 2010
December 2010
4.3.1.2 Species and Community Composition by Habitat
Relative Abundance
Mean relative abundance (i.e., detections per point) of breeding birds was
greatest in horsetail white spruce (f3) and horsetail balsam poplar-white spruce
(f2) ecosite phases, and lowest in the lichen jackpine (a1) ecosite phase
(Table 16). Statistical analysis was completed for those ecosite phases and
wetlands types with eight or more point count locations. Univariate analysis of
variance (using GLM) of the abundance data indicated that there was a
significant difference among habitat types (p<0.01, α=0.05, df=9) in and around
the LSA. Tukey HSD Post Hoc tests indicated that relative abundance was
significantly less in lichen jack pine (a1) than it was in the species rich wooded
fens (FTNN), shrubby fens (FONS) and low-bush cranberry aspen-white spruce
(d2) ecosite phases and wetlands types. The relative abundance of breeding birds
in the low-bush cranberry aspen-white spruce (d2) was significantly greater than
that in wooded bogs (BTNN) and Labrador tea-mesic jack pine-black spruce (c1)
(Table 17). When data were pooled into five categories; mixedwood, deciduous,
coniferous, shrubby wetlands type and wooded wetlands type, there was no
significant difference in relative abundance among habitat types in the LSA
(p=0.06 α=0.05, df=4).
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table 16 Breeding Bird Species Richness, Diversity and Relative Abundance

by Ecosite Phase and Wetlands Type In and Around the Local Study
Area, 2008 and 2010
Mean
Mean
Map Ecosite Phase and Wetlands Number of Mean Richness (b) Relative
(a) Diversity
Code Type Plots (±SD) Abundance
(±SD)
(±SD)
a1 lichen jack pine 8 0.9±0.8 0.9±0.8 0.9±0.9
b1 blueberry jack pine-aspen 16 1.9±0.7 2.5±1.8 2.3±2.2
b2 blueberry aspen-white birch 1 2.0±0.0 2.0±0.0 2.0±0.0
b3 blueberry aspen-white spruce 4 2.3±1.9 2.7±1.7 2.5±0.8
b4 blueberry white spruce-jack pine 3 3.7±2.1 4.7±4.0 4.3±0.5
BONN shrubby bog 3 2.0±0.0 2.0±0.0 2.0±0.0
BTNN wooded bog 33 2.0±1.3 2.4±1.6 2.3±5.3
Labrador tea-mesic jack pine-black
c1 14 1.4±0.9 2.1±1.7 1.9±2.3
spruce
d1 low-bush cranberry aspen 13 1.8±1.2 2.2±1.6 2.1±2.0
low-bush cranberry aspen-white
d2 27 3.4±2.0 4.0±2.3 3.9±4.5
spruce
d3 low-bush cranberry white spruce 9 3.0±2.1 4.2±2.4 3.8±3.3
e1 dogwood balsam poplar-aspen 2 3.0±1.4 3.8±2.6 3.5±0.4
dogwood balsam poplar-white
e2 2 4.5±2.1 5.3±0.9 5.0±0.5
spruce
e3 dogwood white spruce 4 2.75±1.0 3.5±1.9 3.3±0.9
f1 horsetail balsam poplar-aspen 1 5.0±0.0 5.0±0.0 5.0±0.0
horsetail balsam poplar-white
f2 1 6.0±0.0 7.7±0.0 7.0±0.4
spruce
f3 horsetail white spruce 2 6.0±1.4 8.5±2.6 7.5±0.5
FONG graminoid fen 5 3.8±1.5 4.1±1.1 4.0±0.9
FONS shrubby fen 28 2.9±2.0 3.9±2.9 3.4±4.1
FTNN wooded fen 30 2.8±1.8 3.6±2.2 3.3±5.2
Labrador tea–subhygric black
g1 10 2.5±1.6 3.0±2.1 2.8±1.7
spruce-jack pine
Labrador tea/horsetail white spruce-
h1 5 2.2±0.4 3.5±1.2 3.0±2.3
black spruce
meadow meadow 1 2±0.0 3.7±0.0 3.0±0.7
MONG graminoid marsh 2 4±1.4 5.2±1.7 5.0±0.5
SONS shrubby swamp 5 6.4±1.8 6.7±1.4 6.6±1.3
STNN wooded swamp 4 2.8±1.2 3.6±0.9 3.6±0.9
disturbed-
disturbed-clearcut 1 3.0±0.0 3.0±0.0 3.3±1.8
clearcut
disturbed-
disturbed-burn 2 1.5±0.7 2.3±0.5 2.0±0.6
burn
(a)
(b)
Species diversity was calculated using the Shannon-Weiner Index (Krebs 1989).
Note: SD = Standard Deviation. Zeros are reported due to lack of data at sample points.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table 17 Tukey Honestly Significant Difference Post Hoc Test Results for
Pairwise Ecosite Phase and Wetlands Type Comparisons of Breeding
Bird Species Richness, Abundance and Diversity in the Local Study
Area, 2008 and 2010
Mean
Ecosite Phase and Wetlands Ecosite Phase and Wetlands
(a) (a) Difference Significance 95% CI
Type Type Map Code
(±SD)
Relative Abundance
lichen jack pine (a1) wooded fen (FTNN) -2.4±0.8 0.04 -4.8 to -0.04
low-bush cranberry aspen-
lichen jack pine (a1) -3.0±0.8 <0.01 -5.4 to -0.56
white spruce (d2)
lichen jack pine (a1) shrubby fen (FONS) -2.6±0.8 0.03 -5.0 to -0.2
wooded bog (BTNN) 1.6±0.5 0.04 0.2 to 3.1
spruce (d2)
low-bush cranberry aspen-white Labrador tea-mesic jack pine-
2.0±0.6 0.05 0.2 to 4.0
spruce (d2) black spruce (c1)
Species Richness
lichen jack pine (a1) 2.6±0.6 0.04 0.5 to 4.6
spruce (d2)
spruce (d2)
low-bush cranberry aspen-white Labrador tea-mesic jack pine-
2.0±0.5 0.01 0.3 to 3.7
spruce (d2) black spruce (c1)
Species Diversity
lichen jack pine (a1) wooded fen (FTNN) -2.8±0.9 0.04 -5.5 to -0.1
low-bush cranberry aspen-
lichen jack pine (a1) -3.4±0.9 <0.01 -6.1 to -0.6
white spruce (d2)
low-bush cranberry white
lichen jack pine (a1) -3.4±1.0 0.04 -6.7 to -0.1
spruce (d3)
spruce (d2)
(a)
Note: SD = Standard Deviation. Zeros are reported due to lack of data at sample points; CI = Confidence Interval.
An analysis of pooled data collected for the Project and other projects in the RSA
indicated that mean relative abundance was greatest in horsetail balsam
poplar-white spruce (f2) ecosite phase, followed by horsetail white spruce (f3)
ecosite phase and graminoid fen (FONG) wetlands type with a mean of over five
birds per point count location. Similar to the results in and around the LSA,
Labrador tea-mesic jack pine-black spruce (c1), blueberry jack pine-aspen (b1)
and lichen jackpine (a1) ecosite phases had the lowest number of birds per count
station with 1.9, 2.2 and 2.3, respectively. There was a significant difference in
relative abundance among habitat types (p<0.01, α=0.05, df=14) that was
consistent with the differences apparent in data collected in and around the LSA.
Tukey HSD Post Hoc tests indicated that relative abundance in horsetail balsam
poplar-white spruce (f2) ecosite phases was significantly higher than in Labrador
tea-mesic jack pine-black spruce (c1) (mean difference= 4.0, SE = 0.9, 95%
Confidence Interval (CI) = 0.9 to 7.2), blueberry jack pine-aspen (b1) (mean
difference = 3.8, SE = 0.9, 95% CI=0.9 to 6.7), and lichen jackpine (a1) ecosite
Golder Associates
December 2010
phases (mean difference = 3.7, SE = 0.6, 95% CI = 0.6 to 6.8). Relative

abundance in the horsetail balsam poplar-white spruce (f2) was significantly
higher than in the wooded bog (BTNN) wetlands type (mean difference = 2.9, SE
=0.8, 95% CI = 0.2 to 5.7).
Species Richness
Twenty-nine species occurred in four or more of the ecosite phases and wetlands
types surveyed in and around the LSA. Nineteen species occurred in two or three
ecosite phases and wetlands types, while 13 species occurred in one ecosite phase
or wetlands type. The Tennessee warbler was the most widespread species; it
was observed in 27 of the 29 ecosite phases, wetlands types and disturbed
habitats sampled, followed by the chipping sparrow and yellow-rumped warbler,
which were detected at 16 of the ecosite phases, wetlands types and disturbed
habitats sampled. However, these species were not detected evenly across habitat
types (Attachment H, Table H-1).
Of the widespread species, Tennessee warblers were predominantly found in

wooded bog (BTNN) and wooded fen (FTNN) wetlands types, while chipping
sparrows were found in all wetlands types and conifer-dominated ecosite phases.
Yellow-rumped warblers were predominantly found in wooded bogs (BTNN),
followed by wooded fens (FTNN), blueberry jack pine-aspen (b1) and Labrador
tea-mesic jack pine-black spruce (c1) wetlands types and ecosite phases. Species
were also detected that were restricted to relatively few ecosite phases
(Attachment H, Table H-1). For example, nine alder flycatchers were only found
in shrubby swamps (SONS) and shrubby fens (FONS). More than half of the
ovenbirds detected were found in the low-bush cranberry ecosites type. Palm
warblers were predominantly found in wooded bogs (BTNN) (Attachment H,
Table H-1).
Mean species richness was greatest in the shrubby swamp (SONS) wetlands type
and lowest in the lichen jackpine (a1) ecosite phase (Table 16). Statistical
analysis (univariate analysis of variance using GLM) of the richness data
indicated that there was a significant difference in richness among habitat types
in and around the LSA (p<0.01, α=0.05, df=9). Tukey HSD Post Hoc tests
results showed that species richness was significantly higher in low-bush
cranberry aspen-white spruce (d2) than in lichen jack pine (a1), wooded bog
(BTNN) and Labrador tea-mesic jack pine-black spruce (c1) ecosite phases and
wetlands type (Table 17). Species richness in lichen jack pine (a1) was lower
than in shrubby fens (FONS); however it was not significant at α =0.05
(Table 17). When data were pooled into 5 categories: mixedwood, deciduous,
coniferous, shrubby wetlands type and wooded wetlands type, there was a
significant difference in richness among habitat types in the LSA (p=0.021,
Golder Associates
December 2010
α=0.05, df=4). Tukey HSD Post Hoc tests indicated that species richness was
significantly lower in coniferous habitats than in shrubby wetlands (mean
difference= -1.08, p=0.039 95% CI =-2.12 to -0.03).
Within the RSA there were significant differences in species richness among
habitat types (p<0.01, α=0.05, df=14) that was consistent with the differences at
the LSA scale. Species richness was greatest in the horsetail balsam poplar-white
spruce (f2) ecosite phase, followed by the shrubby swamp (SONS) wetlands type
with a mean of over five different bird species per point count station. Similar to
the results in and around the LSA, Labrador tea-mesic jack pine-black spruce
(c1), blueberry jack pine-aspen (b1) and lichen jackpine (a1) ecosite phases had
the lowest species richness at 1.5, 1.7 and 2.0, respectively. Tukey HSD Post Hoc
tests indicated species richness in Labrador tea-mesic jack pine-black spruce
(c1), was significantly lower than low-bush cranberry aspen white spruce (d2)
(mean difference = -1.7, SE = 0.5, 95% CI =-3.4 to -0.2), horsetail balsam
poplar-white spruce (f2) (mean difference = -4.0, SE = 0.8, 95% CI = -6.6 to
-1.4), and horsetail white spruce (f3) (mean difference = -3.0, SE = 0.8, 95%
CI =-5.6 to -0.4) ecosite phases, as well as wooded fen (FTNN) (mean
difference = -1.8, SE = 0.5, 95% CI = -3.4 to -0.0) and shrubby swamp (SONS)
(mean difference = 3.7, SE = 0.6, 95% CI = -5.8 to -1.6) wetlands types.
Species Diversity
Mean species diversity was greatest within the horsetail ecosite phases (i.e., f1, f2
and f3); however, few points were sampled within these ecosites. Shrubby
swamp (SONS) also had high species diversity while lichen jack pine (a1) had
the lowest species diversity (Table 16). Univariate analysis of variance (using
GLM) of the diversity data collected in and around the LSA indicated that there
was a significant difference in diversity among habitat types (p<0.01, α=0.05,
df=9). Tukey HSD Post Hoc indicated that species diversity was significantly
lower in lichen jack pine (a1) than in low-bush cranberry aspen-white spruce
(d2), low-bush cranberry white spruce (d3), wooded fen (FTNN) and shrubby fen
(FONS) ecosite phases and wetlands types (Table 17). Species diversity was also
significantly higher in low-bush cranberry aspen-white spruce (d2) ecosite phase
than in wooded bog (BTNN) wetlands type (Table 17). When data were pooled
into five categories: mixedwood, deciduous, coniferous, shrubby wetlands type,
wooded wetlands type there was no significant difference in species diversity
among habitat types in the LSA (p=0.07 α=0.05, df=4).
Species Diversity
Mean species diversity was greatest within the horsetail ecosite phases (i.e., f1, f2
and f3); however, few points were sampled within these ecosites. Shrubby
swamp (SONS) also had high species diversity while lichen jack pine (a1) had
Golder Associates
December 2010
the lowest species diversity (Table 16). Univariate analysis of variance (using
GLM) of the diversity data collected in and around the LSA indicated that there
was a significant difference in diversity among habitat types (p<0.01, α=0.05,
df=9). Tukey HSD Post Hoc indicated that species diversity was significantly
lower in lichen jack pine (a1) than in low-bush cranberry aspen-white spruce
(d2), low-bush cranberry white spruce (d3), wooded fen (FTNN) and shrubby fen
(FONS) ecosite phases and wetlands types (Table 17). Species diversity was also
significantly higher in low-bush cranberry aspen-white spruce (d2) ecosite phase
than in wooded bog (BTNN) wetlands type (Table 17). When data were pooled
into five categories: mixedwood, deciduous, coniferous, shrubby wetlands type,
wooded wetlands type there was no significant difference in species diversity
among habitat types in the LSA (p=0.07 α=0.05, df=4).
In general, species richness, diversity and relative abundance values reported in

and around the LSA fall within the range of values reported for other in situ
projects in the region (Attachment E, Table E-27).
Golder Associates
December 2010
5 RESULTS — AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES
5.1 AMPHIBIANS
Amphibians occurring within the region potentially include wood frogs, boreal
chorus frogs, northern leopard frogs, Canadian toads and boreal (western) toads.
Northern leopard frogs are listed provincially as “At Risk” (ASRD 2006, internet
site) and federally as “Special Concern” by COSEWIC (2009) and as
“Schedule 1: Special Concern” by SARA (Species at Risk Public Registry 2010,
internet site). Boreal toads are listed provincially as “Sensitive” (ASRD 2006,
internet site) and federally as “Special Concern” by COSEWIC (2002) and
“Schedule 1: Special Concern” by SARA (Species at Risk Public Registry 2010,
internet site). Canadian toads are listed provincially as “May Be at Risk”
(ASRD 2006, internet site) and are federally listed as “Not at Risk” by
COSEWIC (2009, internet site).

A total of 202 plots were surveyed for amphibians from June 2 to 4 and 6, 2008,
May 28 to 31, 2009 and June 2, 4 and 5, 2010 (Figure 22, Table 18). Boreal
chorus frogs and wood frogs were recorded in 2008 and 2009, but only boreal
chorus frogs were heard during surveys in 2010. A Canadian toad and two boreal
toads were recorded during the 2008 surveys, but neither species was heard in
2009 or 2010. Northern leopard frogs were not detected.
Of the four amphibian species detected in and around the LSA, boreal chorus
frogs were the most numerous, representing 80% of all amphibians recorded.
Wood frogs represented 19% of amphibians recorded. Together, boreal toads and
Canadian toads represented less than 1% of recorded amphibian calls. Estimates
of abundance are less reliable for boreal chorus frogs because these data include
rank 3 (Section 2.1.9) abundances on the call index scale. It is impossible to tell
whether large choruses (i.e., rank 3) are composed of 20 or 100-plus individuals
resulting in a large margin of error in abundance estimates. The present study
assumed a call index rank of 3 to equal 30 boreal chorus frogs (Stevens et al.
2007). Rank 3 choruses were not detected for other species during surveys in
and around the LSA and therefore, individual numbers for these species were
counted in the field.
Golder Associates
I:\CLIENTS\AOSC\09-1346-1011\mapping\mxd\Wildlife\Baseline\Fig22_AmphibSpecies_ofConcernObserved .mxd
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
Rg.19 Rg.18 Rg.17 Rg.16

W4M
Jo
s
6360000
6360000
ly
n
C
re
e
k
k
ree
aC
e lse
Ch
Tp.96
E ll
sR
iv e
r
6350000
6350000
Tp.95
6340000
6340000
Sni p e C re ek
Tp.94
r
iv e
sR
E ll
6330000
6330000
Tp.93

k Riv
er
ver
Ri
er
ov
6320000
6320000
D
Tp.92
MacKay River
6310000
Bi
rch
6310000
wo
od Tp.91
C
r ee
k
River
MacKay
6300000
6300000
Wh
Du i sk
nk ey
ir k
Ri v
er
Tp.90
Round
6290000
6290000
Tp.89
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000

LEGEND
AMPHIBIAN SPECIES
10 0 10
INDIAN RESERVE CANADIAN TOAD SCALE 1:250,000 KILOMETRES
OPEN WATER WESTERN TOAD
PROJECT
WATERCOURSE
AMPHIBIAN SPECIES OF CONCERN OBSERVED

TITLE

DURING AMPHIBIAN SURVEYS, 2008 THROUGH 2010

REFERENCE
FIGURE: 22
HYDROGRAPHY DATA OBTAINED FROM GeoGratis, © DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. GIS JH 15 Oct. 2010
December 2010
Table 18 Number of Amphibian Observations In and Around the Local Study

Area, 2008, 2009 and 2010
(a)
Number of Observations
Survey Plots Boreal Canadian
Wood Frog Boreal Toad Total
Chorus Frog Toad
June 2, 3, 4 and 6, 2008 123 109 6 2 1 118
May 28 to 31, 2009 53 50 34 0 0 84
June 2, 4 and 5, 2010 26 12 0 0 0 12
Total 202 171 40 2 1 214
(a)
Observations for boreal chorus frogs and wood frogs include estimates of relative abundance and assumed a full
chorus (i.e., call index rank of 3) to equal 30 boreal chorus frogs and 59 wood frogs (Stevens et al. 2007).
The low number of wood frogs recorded during the early June 2008 and 2010
surveys relative to the late May 2009 survey, suggests that their peak breeding
period may have occurred before these surveys. This is consistent with evidence
that wood frogs start calling earlier in the spring than boreal chorus frogs. These
results may therefore underestimate wood frog abundance in and around the
LSA.
Thirteen wood frogs were recorded incidentally in the graminoid fen (FONS)
wetlands types, and the Labrador tea–subhygric black spruce–jack pine (g1)
ecosite phase during wildlife surveys conducted in and around the LSA in 2010
(Attachment C). Other amphibian species were not detected incidentally.
Survey locations were visually inspected for evidence of breeding (e.g., egg
clusters, egg strings and tadpoles) at 21 of 26 plots in 2010. No such evidence
was detected, but vocalizations indicate that breeding amphibians may have been
present.
5.1.1.2 Habitat
Boreal chorus frogs were heard at every ecosite phase and wetlands type
surveyed except the Labrador tea/horsetail white spruce–black spruce (h1)
ecosite phase, the shrubby bog (BONS) wetlands type and shrubland (Sh) habitat
(Table 19). Results from the statistical analysis suggest that the relative
abundance of boreal chorus frogs in the RSA differed among habitat groups
(H = 18.5, P = 0.001, df = 4) but not waterbody groups (H = 7.2, P = 0.13, df =
4). Based on 95% confidence intervals, mean relative abundance was higher in
wetlands and disturbed habitat than in upland habitat (Table 20). Refer to
Section 2.1.9.2 for a description of the habitat and waterbody groups used in the
analysis. These findings are generally consistent with the literature which
indicates that boreal chorus frogs favour temporary breeding ponds (Russell and
Bauer 2001). Water levels in some wetlands (e.g., shrubby swamps [SONS] and
marshes [MONG]) and disturbed areas tend to fluctuate during the year and
Golder Associates
December 2010
therefore, temporary breeding ponds may be more likely to occur in these

habitats.
Table 19 Number of Amphibian Observations by Ecosite Phase and Wetlands

Type In and Around the Local Study Area, 2008, 2009, 2010
(b)
Ecosite Phase/Wetlands Number Boreal
(a) Code Wood Boreal Canadian
Type of Plots Chorus Total
Frog Toad Toad
Frog
Upland
lichen jack pine a1 2 4 0 0 0 4
blueberry jack pine–aspen b1 10 9 1 0 0 10
blueberry aspen–white
b3 3 4 1 0 0 5
spruce
Labrador tea–mesic jack
c1 4 3 0 0 0 3
pine-black spruce
low-bush cranberry aspen d1 10 9 2 0 0 11
low-bush cranberry aspen–
d2 8 8 0 0 0 8
white spruce
horsetail balsam poplar–
f2 1 2 2 0 0 4
white spruce
Labrador tea–subhygric black
g1 5 3 0 0 3
spruce–jack pine
Labrador tea/horsetail white
h1 2 0 0 0 0 0
spruce–black spruce
upland subtotal 45 42 6 0 0 48
Wetlands
shrubby bog BONS 5 0 0 0 0 0
open bog with collapse scar BOXC 2 1 1 0 0 2
wooded bog with collapse
BTNC 1 1 0 0 0 1
scar
wooded bog with internal
BTNI 2 1 0 0 0 1
lawn
wooded bog BTNN 35 26 12 0 0 38
wooded bog with internal
lawns with islands of forested BTNR 1 1 0 0 0 1
peat plateau
wooded permafrost bog with
BTXC 8 8 0 0 0 8
collapse scar
wooded permafrost bog BTXN 6 4 0 0 0 4
graminoid fen FONG 5 7 0 0 0 7
shrubby fen FONS 32 26 9 1 1 37
open patterned fen FOPN 3 1 0 0 0 1
wooded fen with collapse
FTNC 1 1 0 0 0 1
scar
wooded fen with internal lawn FTNI 3 1 3 0 0 4
wooded fen FTNN 35 37 7 1 0 45
graminoid marsh MONG 1 2 0 0 0 2
shrubby swamp SONS 4 2 0 0 0 2
wooded swamp STNN 5 3 0 0 0 3
wetlands subtotal 149 122 32 2 1 157
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table 19 Number of Amphibian Observations by Ecosite Phase and Wetlands

Type in and Around the Local Study Area, 2008, 2009, 2010
(continued)
(b)
Ecosite Phase/Wetlands Number Boreal
(a) Code Wood Boreal Canadian
Type of Plots Chorus Total
Frog Toad Toad
Frog
Other
burn n/a 5 4 2 0 0 6
flooded n/a 1 2 0 0 0 2
shrubland n/a 1 0 0 0 0 0
other subtotal 7 6 2 0 0 8
Disturbed
clearing n/a 1 1 0 0 0 1
disturbed subtotal 1 1 0 0 0 1
Total 202 171 40 2 1 214
(a)
(b)
Observations for boreal chorus frogs and wood frogs include estimates of relative abundance and assumed a full
chorus (i.e., call index rank of 3) to equal 30 boreal chorus frogs and 59 wood frogs (Stevens et al. 2007).
Note: Some numbers are rounded for presentation purposes. Therefore, it may appear that the totals do not equal
the sum of the individual values.
Table 20 Mean Relative Abundance of Boreal Chorus Frogs per Habitat and
Waterbody Group in the Regional Study Area
Number of
Habitat Number of Detections (c) (d) Waterbody (c) (d)
(a) (b) Mean ± 1 SD (a) Detections Mean ± 1 SD
Group (Number of Plots) Group (b)
(Number of Plots)
bogs 18 (23) 16 ± 14.4 lake/pond 98 (54) 16 ± 13.5
fens 105 (112) 16 ± 14.2 standing water 160 (124) 17 ± 13.5
upland 97 (94) 11 ± 12.4 creek (< 5 m) 27 (41) 14 ± 13.6
wetlands 112 (102) 18 ± 13.3 river (> 5 m) 8 (17) 6 ± 9.9
disturbed 32 (30) 21 ± 12.2 cutline/ditch 71 (73) 14 ± 13.9
(a)
Habitat and waterbody groups used in the analysis are described in Section 2.1.9.2.
(b)
Number of detections may exceed the number of plots because multiple choruses may be heard at any given plot.
(c)
Estimates of relative abundance for boreal chorus frogs and wood frogs assumed a full chorus (i.e., call index rank of 3)
to equal 30 boreal chorus frogs and 59 wood frogs (Stevens et al. 2007).
(d)
Standard deviation can only be calculated if there is more than one observation.
Wood frogs were heard calling from waterbodies in a variety of ecosite phases
(e.g., low-bush cranberry aspen [d2] and horsetail balsam poplar–white spruce
[f2]) and wetlands types (e.g., wooded bog [BTNN] and shrubby fen [FONS]), as
well as burned habitat (Table 19). Results from the statistical analysis suggest
that the relative abundance of wood frogs in the RSA differed among habitat
groups (H = 20.9, P < 0.001, df = 4) and waterbody groups (H = 26.3, P < 0.001,
df = 4). Based on 95% confidence intervals, mean relative abundance was higher
in upland habitat than in fens, wetlands and disturbed habitat (Table 21). Mean
Golder Associates
December 2010
relative abundance was also higher in lakes/ponds than in fens, standing water
and cutlines/ditches (Table 21). These findings are consistent with the literature
which indicates that wood frogs breed in natural ponds, pits and streams in moist
terrestrial communities, and move to lowland bogs after breeding (Russell and
Bauer 2001).
Table 21 Mean Relative Abundance of Wood Frogs per Habitat and Waterbody
Group in the Regional Study Area
Number of Number of (c)
Habitat (c) (d) Waterbody Mean ± 1
(a) Detections Mean ± 1 SD (a) Detections (d)
Group (b) Group (b) SD
(Number of Plots) (Number of Plots)
bogs 14 (23) 10 ± 21.0 lake/pond 56 (54) 15 ± 22.4
upland 61 (94) 16 ± 23.1 creek (< 5 m) 8 (41) 9 ± 20.2
wetlands 41 (102) 2 ± 3.1 river (> 5 m) 3 (17) 1 ± 0.0
disturbed 14 (30) 6 ± 15.4 cutline/ditch 38 (73) 5 ± 13.3
(a)
(b)
(c)
Estimates of relative abundance for boreal chorus frogs and wood frogs assumed a full chorus (i.e., call index rank of
3) to equal 30 boreal chorus frogs and 59 wood frogs (Stevens et al. 2007).
(d)
One boreal toad was heard in a shrubby fen (FONS) wetlands type and the other
was heard in a wooded fen (FTNN) wetlands type (Table 19). Few boreal toads
have been recorded in the RSA. Three were detected during the amphibian
surveys for Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion Project (Shell 2007). These
observations occurred in wooded fen (FTNN) and wooded bog (BTNN) wetlands
types (Appendix E, Table E-29). Most of the boreal toad populations in Alberta
are documented to be south of the Project (Russell and Bauer 2000). Historical
data from the Oil Sands Region indicate that boreal toads occur within wooded
bog (BTNN), Labrador tea-mesic jack pine-black spruce (c1), dogwood balsam
poplar-aspen (e1), dogwood balsam poplar-white spruce (e2), horsetail white
spruce (f3), graminoid fen (FONG), shrubby fen (FONS), wooded fen (FTNN),
Labrador tea-subhygric black spruce-jack pine (g1), marsh (MONG), shrubby
swamp (SONS), wooded swamp (STNN), shallow open water (WONN) and
disturbed habitats (Appendix E, Table E-29).
The Canadian toad was recorded in a shrubby fen (FONS) (Table 19). Canadian
toads were observed on the Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion Project (Shell 2007),
the Suncor Voyageur South Project (Suncor 2007), the Canadian Natural Horizon
Project (Canadian Natural 2002) and the Total Joslyn Mine Expansion Project
(Deer Creek Energy 2006). Most Canadian toad detections in the RSA occurred
in fens, uplands and disturbed habitat, as well as lakes/ponds and standing water
(Table 22). Historical data from the Oil Sands Region indicate that Canadian
Golder Associates
December 2010
toads occur within several habitats including blueberry jack pine - aspen (b1),
blueberry aspen - white spruce (b3), wooded bog (BTNN), Labrador tea mesic
jack pine - black spruce (c1), low-bush cranberry aspen (d1), low-bush cranberry
aspen - white spruce (d2), shrubby fen (FONS), wooded fen (FTNN), Labrador
tea/horsetail white spruce - black spruce (h1) and shrubby swamp (SONS)
ecosite phases and wetlands types (Appendix E, Table E-29).
Table 22 Mean Number of Canadian Toads per Habitat and Waterbody Group
in the Regional Study Area
Number of Number of
Habitat (c) Waterbody (c)
(a) Detections Mean ± 1 SD (a) Detections Mean ± 1 SD
Group (b) Group (b)
(Number of Plots) (Number of Plots)
bogs 2 (23) 2 ± 0.0 lake/pond 14 (54) 2 ± 1.3
upland 10 (94) 2 ± 1.1 creek (< 5 m) 3 (41) 3 ± 2.9
wetlands 6 (102) 3 ± 0.8 river (> 5 m) 0 (17) n/a
disturbed 10 (30) 2.7± 1.4 cutline/ditch 8 (73) 2 ± 0.9
(a)
(b)
(c)
The above findings are generally consistent with the summer breeding habitat
requirements outlined in Table 23. Amphibians use resources in both aquatic and
terrestrial systems during their lifetime. In addition, amphibians may migrate
between different habitat resources during the year (Sinsch 1990). Suitable
habitat in and around the Project LSA appears to be available for most of the
amphibians expected to occur in the area. In general, semi-permanent and
permanent wetlands are widely distributed across the area and provide good
habitat for boreal chorus frogs, wood frogs and Canadian toads (Table 23). The
low number of boreal toad observations in the RSA suggests that this area may
be the northern extreme of their range.
Table 23 Amphibian Habitat Requirements

Species Breeding Summer Hibernation
favours temporary ponds, will use near water margins; under leaf under stumps, leaf litter;
boreal
more permanent sites under litter, prone to desiccation; glycoprotectant; can survive
chorus frog
some conditions establishes home range temperatures as low as -6C
uses natural ponds, pits, stream moist terrestrial community type;
under stumps, leaf litter;
back waters; will breed in bogs; prefers canopy closure, wet litter;
wood frog glycoprotectant; can survive
early breeders, rapid moves to lowland bogs after
temperatures as low as -6C
metamorphosis; site fidelity breeding; establishes home range
use ponds, stream edges, shallow wetlands habitats, forested areas, upland areas near seeps, stream
boreal toad margins of lakes, ditches and wet shrublands, avalanche slopes banks and underground burrows;
road ruts; site fidelity and subalpine meadows temperature threshold not available
wide range of breeding waters edge (including lakes and burrows in coarse-textured soil,
Canadian
community types: lake margins, streams); tends to avoid forests; under frostline; communal areas;
toad
slow streams, ponds; site fidelity most stay by breeding areas temperature threshold not available
Source: Russell and Bauer 2001.
Golder Associates
December 2010
5.2 REPTILES
Potential reptiles occurring within the region are the red-sided garter snake and
the western plains garter snake (Russell and Bauer 2001). No snakes were
observed incidentally during field work in the LSA.
Golder Associates
December 2010
6 RESULTS — IMPORTANT WILDLIFE HABITAT

6.1 WILDLIFE SPECIES BIODIVERSITY
Important ecosite phases and wetlands types for wildlife were identified within
the regional biodiversity framework initially developed in 2000 (Golder 2000a)
and updated several times, most recently in 2007, with revised species status and
additional data collected since the original report was produced (Biodiversity
Baseline Report included on a CD with this the Application). Within the region,
species richness indices indicated that the highest number of terrestrial vertebrate
species (152) are expected to occur in the shrubby swamp (SONS) wetlands type
(Biodiversity Baseline Report [Attachment A, Table A-6], included on a CD with
the Application) which covers 756 ha (1%) of the LSA. Of the upland ecosite
phases, the horsetail balsam poplar-white spruce (f2), dogwood balsam
poplar-white spruce (e2) and low-bush cranberry aspen-white spruce (d2) are
expected to support the highest number of terrestrial vertebrate species (137, 136
and 135, respectively; Biodiversity Baseline Report [Attachment A, Table A-6],
included on a CD with the Application). The first two of these ecosite phases
cover 1% or less of the LSA. The low-bush cranberry aspen-white spruce (d2)
ecosite phase covers 6,035 ha (10%) of the LSA.
In general, wetlands types, particularly wooded fens (FTNN) and shrubby

swamps (SONS), are likely to contain more wildlife species than terrestrial
ecosite phases. Most ecosite phases and wetlands types in the region exhibit
species overlap in habitat use, supporting wildlife species that utilize several
other habitats (i.e., species that are considered habitat generalists). Only lakes,
rivers, graminoid marshes (MONG) and shrubby swamps (SONS) are likely to
support unique species (i.e., habitat specialists) with no species overlap with
other vegetation types in the region (Biodiversity Baseline Report [Attachment
A, Table A-10], included on a CD with the Application). All vegetation types
are expected to support listed wildlife species, with wooded fens (FTNN) and
wooded swamps (STNN) supporting the most, 36 and 37 species, respectively
(Biodiversity Baseline Report [Attachment A, Table A-12], included on a CD
with the Application).
Golder Associates
December 2010
6.2 IMPORTANT WILDLIFE AREAS

Two areas designated as important for wildlife on a regional scale are partially
located in the LSA (Figure 23; ACC 2010, internet site). The WSAR woodland
caribou range partly overlaps with the central and southeastern portions of the
LSA, and the Red Earth woodland caribou range intersects the very northern
edge of the LSA. Three Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs) within the
Boreal Natural Region also overlap with the LSA; ESAs 704b, 548 and 693
(Figure 23). ESA 626 is located just outside the LSA. These areas were
identified as containing rare or unique elements in the 2009 provincial update of
ESAs and may require special management consideration due to their
conservation needs (Fiera Biological Consulting 2009, internet site). No
important moose areas occur in the LSA.
6.3 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS
Riparian zones are particular vegetation communities that exist generally within
100 m of streams and waterbodies. Riparian habitats have been identified as the
most structurally diverse areas within the landscape, characterized by having
high wildlife abundance and as supporting important biodiversity functions
(Hannon et al. 2002). Riparian habitats have also been predicted to act as
movement corridors for wildlife species (Westworth, Brusnyk and Associates
1996c).
Riparian zones comprise 6% of the LSA or 3,847 ha. A detailed analysis of

riparian zones is presented in the Terrestrial Vegetation, Wetlands and Forestry
Baseline and Biodiversity Baseline Reports, included on a CD with this
Application. These riparian zones are distributed as 680 small sized (5.6 ±
13.4 ha) but variable (239% AREA_CV [patch size coefficient of variation])
patches along streams unevenly distributed across the landscape. The small
mean nearest neighbour value (80.7 ± 163.1 m; median of 30 m) reflects the
narrow widths of watercourses, while the variability in this value (202%
ENN_CV [Euclidean nearest neighbour mean]) reflects the distance between
waterbodies. The spatial configuration of riparian zones may facilitate the
movement of wildlife species across the landscape within the LSA.
Golder Associates
I:\CLIENTS\AOSC\09-1346-1011\mapping\mxd\Wildlife\Baseline\Fig23_LSAImportantWildlifeAreas.mxd
400000 425000
Rg.18 Namur Lake
Rg.19 Legend
Lake Rg.17 Rg.15 Rg.14
Tp.97 Rg.13
Rg.16
Jo
W4M
s
ly
n
C
re
ek
632 r ee
k
e aC
els
Ch
Tp.96
704
Ell
Ris
ve
r
548
6350000
6350000
626
Tp.95
548
Snip e C re ek
548
621 Tp.94
er
s Ri v
Ell
Tp.93
6325000
6325000
548
Rabbit Lake D u n ki r
k Riv
er
ver
Ri
er
D ov
548
Tp.92
MacKay River
Bi
r ch
wo
o d
Tp.91
693
C
ree
k
River
MacKay
6300000
6300000
Du
nk
irk
Riv
er
Tp.90
Tp.89
400000 425000
LEGEND
CARIBOU RANGE
5 0 5
INDIAN RESERVE WEST SIDE OF THE ATHABASCA RIVER SCALE 1:225,000 KILOMETRES
OPEN WATER RED EARTH
PROJECT
WATERCOURSE ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS
DESIGNATED IMPORTANT WILDLIFE AREAS

TITLE
REFERENCE
FIGURE: 23
GIS JH 22 Nov. 2010
December 2010
7 RESULTS — SPECIES OF CONCERN IN AND

AROUND THE LOCAL STUDY AREA
Species of concern include select CEMA-SEWG ratified environmental
indicators and all federally or provincially listed species that were recorded in
and around the LSA (Table 24). All incidental observations collected during
field surveys for the Project and FWMIS records for listed species are illustrated
on Figures 24 and 25.
Table 24 Species and Bird Communities of Special Concern Observed Within

the Local Study Area
(a) (b) (c)
Species National Status Provincial Status
Mammals
beaver Not at Risk Secure
black bear Not at Risk Secure
Canada lynx Not at Risk Sensitive
fisher n/a Sensitive
hoary bat n/a Sensitive
moose n/a Secure
northern long-eared bat n/a May Be at Risk
red bat n/a Sensitive
silver-haired bat n/a Sensitive
wolverine Special Concern May Be at Risk
(d)
woodland caribou Threatened At Risk
Birds
American bittern n/a Sensitive
American white pelican n/a Sensitive
barred owl n/a Sensitive
bay-breasted warbler n/a Sensitive
black-throated green warbler n/a Sensitive
brown creeper n/a Sensitive
Cape May warbler n/a Sensitive
(d)
common nighthawk Threatened Sensitive
common yellowthroat n/a Sensitive
great grey owl Not at Risk Sensitive
least flycatcher n/a Sensitive
(d)
olive-sided flycatcher Threatened Secure
pileated woodpecker n/a Sensitive
sandhill crane Not At Risk Sensitive
sora n/a Sensitive
yellow rail Special Concern Undetermined
Amphibians
(d)
boreal toad Special Concern Sensitive
Canadian toad Not at Risk May Be at Risk
(a)
Italicized entries are ratified CEMA-SEWG wildlife indicators for long-term monitoring.
(b)
Species at Risk Public Registry (2010, internet site).
(c)
(d)
Listed on Schedule 1 of SARA (Species at Risk Public Registry 2010, internet site).
Golder Associates
I:\CLIENTS\AOSC\09-1346-1011\mapping\mxd\Wildlife\Baseline\Fig24_Species_ofConcern_Mamma_BorealToad.mxd
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
Rg.16
Rg.18 Rg.17 Rg.15 Rg.14
W4M
Jo
s
6360000
6360000
ly
n
C
re
e
k
k
ree
aC
lse
C he
Tp.96
Ell
sR
ive
r
6350000
6350000
Tp.95
6340000
6340000
Sni p e Cre ek
Tp.94
er
Riv
Ells
6330000
6330000
Tp.93

k Riv
er
v er
Ri
v er
o
6320000
6320000
D
Tp.92
MacKay River
6310000
6310000
Bir
ch
wo
o d
Tp.91
Cr
eek
River
MacKay
6300000
6300000
Wh
Du isk
nk
irk
Riv
er
Tp.90
Round Lake
6290000
6290000
Tp.89
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000

LEGEND
10 0 10
TERRESTRIAL LOCAL STUDY AREA WILDLIFE SPECIES OF CONCERN
INDIAN RESERVE BEAVER SCALE 1:250,000 KILOMETRES
OPEN WATER BLACK BEAR
PROJECT
WATERCOURSE CANADA LYNX
DISTURBED CANADIAN TOAD
WILDLIFE SPECIES OF CONCERN IDENTIFIED

EXISTING AND APPROVED URBAN MOOSE
TITLE
IN AND AROUND THE LOCAL STUDY

SILVER-HAIRED BAT
AREA FROM FWMIS DATA AND INCIDENTAL

WOODLAND CARIBOU
OBSERVATIONS – MAMMALS AND BOREAL TOADS
REFERENCE
FIGURE: 24
I:\CLIENTS\AOSC\09-1346-1011\mapping\mxd\Wildlife\Baseline\Fig25_Species_ofConcern_Birds.mxd
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000
Rg.16
Rg.18 Rg.17 Rg.15 Rg.14
W4M
Jo
s
6360000
6360000
ly
n
C
re
e
eek
k
Cr
ea
els
Ch
Tp.96
Ell
sR
ive
r
6350000
6350000
Tp.95
6340000
6340000
Sni p e Cre ek
Tp.94
er
Riv
Ells
6330000
6330000
Tp.93

k Riv
er
v er
Ri
er
ov
6320000
6320000
D
Tp.92
MacKay River
6310000
6310000
Bir
ch
wo
od Tp.91
C
ree
k
River
MacKay
6300000
6300000
Wh
Du isk
nk
irk
Riv
er
Tp.90
Round Lake
6290000
6290000
Tp.89
380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000

LEGEND
10 0 10
TERRESTRIAL LOCAL STUDY AREA WILDLIFE SPECIES OF CONCERN LEAST FLYCATCHER
INDIAN RESERVE AMERICAN BITTERN PILEATED WOODPECKER SCALE 1:250,000 KILOMETRES
OPEN WATER AMERICAN WHITE PELICAN SANDHILL CRANE
PROJECT
WATERCOURSE BARRED OWL SHARP-TAILED GROUSE
DISTURBED BLACK-THROATED GREEN WARBLER SORA
EXISTING AND APPROVED URBAN COMMON NIGHTHAWK WESTERN TANAGER
WILDLIFE SPECIES OF CONCERN IDENTIFIED IN
TITLE
GREAT BLUE HERON
GREAT GRAY OWL AND AROUND THE LOCAL STUDY AREA FROM FWMIS
DATA AND INCIDENTAL OBSERVATIONS – BIRDS
REFERENCE
FIGURE: 25
December 2010
7.1 “AT RISK” SPECIES
7.1.1 Woodland Caribou
Woodland caribou are listed federally as “Threatened” by COSEWIC, are on

Schedule 1 of the SARA (Species at Risk Public Registry 2010, internet site) and
are listed as “At Risk” in Alberta (ASRD 2006, internet site).
Lichen constitutes the primary winter food source for woodland caribou, and
woodland caribou therefore prefer mature to old forests where lichens are
relatively abundant (Dzus 2000). Woodland caribou primarily select
peatland-dominated landscapes such as black spruce bogs and black
spruce-tamarack fens, while typically avoiding terrestrial areas (Anderson 1999;
Stuart-Smith et al. 1997). Peatlands make up about 52% of the LSA and 51% of
the RSA. Woodland caribou in northeastern Alberta also select upland jack pine
ridges containing a high abundance of lichens (Schneider et al. 2000). Woodland
caribou tend to move into areas of higher tree cover when snow depths increase,
as movement and feeding are easier (Fuller and Keith 1981).
Woodland caribou populations occur at low densities (0.03 to 0.12 caribou/km2)

and are sparsely distributed across available habitat (Dzus 2000). Although the
availability of quality habitat for forage and breeding health are not believed to
be limiting for woodland caribou in Alberta (BCC 2003), effects to caribou
populations are believed to result from sensory disturbance of developments and
fragmentation leading to habitat avoidance (Dyer 1999), barriers to movement
and associated increases in predator mobility and caribou predation
(CAPP 2004). In undisturbed landscapes, the major limiting factor for woodland
caribou populations is predation, primarily by wolves; however; other predators
include bear, wolverine, coyote and Canada lynx (Dzus 2000). Increasing
white-tailed deer, moose and beaver populations may be creating an apparent
competition situation for woodland caribou in northeastern Alberta, whereby
growing wolf populations that rely primarily on these prey species pose a threat
to caribou conservation (Latham 2009).
The WSAR woodland caribou range partly overlaps with the central and
southeastern portions of the LSA. This zone is occupied by the Wabasca-Dunkirk
herd (ACC 2010, internet site). The Red Earth woodland caribou range and herd
intersects with the very northern tip of the LSA (ACC 2010, internet site). The
finite rate-of-increase (i.e., lambda) for caribou within the WSAR range was last
estimated in 2008 to be 0.90. The geometric mean of lambda from 2003 to 2008
for this herd was 0.95 (Schneider et al. 2010). Lambda for caribou within the Red
Earth range was last estimated in 2008 to be 0.84 (ACC 2010, internet site). The
Golder Associates
December 2010
geometric mean of lambda from 2003 to 2008 for woodland caribou within this
range was 0.87 (Schneider et al. 2010). A value of lambda less than one means
that the population is currently in a state of decline. It was recently estimated
that the Wabasca-Dunkirk herd was likely to be extirpated within about 70 years
given the current population size and rate of decline (Schneider et al. 2010). The
Red Earth herd was estimated to be extirpated within about 25 years (Schneider
et al. 2010).
7.2 “MAY BE AT RISK” SPECIES
7.2.1 Canadian Toad
Canadian toads are provincially listed as “May Be at Risk” (ASRD 2006, internet
site). One Canadian toad was recorded during nocturnal amphibian callback
surveys in 2008. Recent surveys in the Oil Sands Region have shown that this
species is very widespread with high numbers in localized areas (Shell 2007).
Generally, breeding Canadian toads have been detected most often in fens, bogs
and marshes.
Suitable over-wintering sites are believed to be the primary limiting factor for
Canadian toad populations (Roberts 2003, pers. comm.). Their freeze-avoidance
strategy for winter survival requires them to burrow into the soil profile, but their
morphology prevents them from doing so in soils without a loose structure
(Hamilton et al. 1998). Even when sandy soils are abundant, the root zone of
forbs and grasses can act as a dense barrier preventing access to the underlying
soil. The disturbance of suitable over-wintering sites, particularly communal
sites that support high densities of toads, can adversely affect entire local
populations of the species because suitable hibernacula are a limiting factor for
Canadian toads.
A further limiting factor on Canadian toad populations is the need for a

combination of suitable breeding, foraging and over-wintering habitat within a
limited spatial area. The maximum distance Canadian toads have been shown to
travel is just over 2 km away from a breeding pond. Using this as a guideline for
the maximum distance the toads will move in a season, the implication is that
Canadian toad habitat must consist of a suitable over-wintering site (i.e., elevated
topography or hill slope consisting of loose, sandy soils), a breeding waterbody,
optimally having characteristics such as stable water levels, gradually emerging
shores, mudflats and a Typha/Scirpus fringe, and foraging habitat supporting a
sufficient food resource all within a 2-km radius.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Parasites and pathogens may be another limiting factor to Canadian toad

populations. In one study, the majority of diagnosable toad mortalities were the
result of mycotic dermatitis, an inflammation of the skin, caused by a fungal
pathogen (Taylor et al. 1999a, b). Parasitic trematodes (i.e., flatworm/fluke) and
nematodes (i.e., unsegmented roundworm) have also been found to infect
Canadian toads and have negative effects on their health (Bursey and
Goldberg 1998).
7.2.2 Northern Long-Eared Bat
Northern long-eared bats are listed as “May Be at Risk” in Alberta and are
reported as uncommon over their known range (ASRD 2006, internet site).
Nineteen northern long-eared bats were captured during bat surveys in and
around the LSA during baseline bat surveys. Twelve of the northern long-eared
bats were females, of which seven were adult females not reproductively active
this season, four were reproductively active adult females and one was a juvenile.
The remaining seven were males, of which five were males not reproductively
active, one was a juvenile, and one whose maturity and reproductive status could
not be determined. Capture results suggest that this species was reproducing in
and around the LSA during baseline surveys. In addition, northern long-eared
bat echolocation calls were identified during ultrasonic detection surveys.
Northern long-eared bats are found predominantly in mixedwood and coniferous

forests during the spring, summer and fall (Smith 1993). These bats mate in the
fall but fertilization is delayed until spring, with generally one young born
(Pattie and Fisher 1999). During the winter months, they hibernate in caves. The
main limiting factor for northern long-eared bats in Alberta is the absence of
suitable caves and the loss of old growth trees and roosting habitat. When the
number of hibernacula, typically caves, is low, bat populations are clumped and
the risk of effects, such as predation, is increased (Caceres and Pybus 1997).
Prior to 2000, there were few data on the northern long-eared bat distribution in
northern Alberta. One historical record of the northern long-eared bat was
documented in the Fort McKay area in the summer of 1983 (Caceres and Pybus
1997), and the closest known hibernacula was identified in Wood Buffalo
National Park (Schowalter 1979). However, since 2001, northern long-eared bats
have been observed on eight oil sands leases, including the LSA (e.g., Canadian
Natural 2002; Golder 2005). Additionally, during provincial species at risk bat
surveys in northeastern Alberta in 2001, three northern long-eared bats were
captured along cutlines and trails, two at Kearl Lake in the Fort McKay area and
one at Leismer in the Conklin area (Hubbs and Schowalter 2003;
Schowalter 2001). Thus, it is likely that northern long-eared bats are much more
widespread than originally postulated.
Golder Associates
December 2010
7.2.3 Wolverine
The wolverine is listed as “At Risk” in Alberta (ASRD 2006, internet site),
federally listed as “Special Concern” (COSEWIC 2003), and is not listed by
SARA (Species at Risk Public Registry 2010, internet site). Wolverines are
uncommon carnivores in the Oil Sands Region with large home ranges
(1,450 km2 and 525 km2 for males and females, respectively [Magoun et al.
2005]). Movement corridors and habitat connectivity in the regional landscape
are likely important to the species.
Wolverines use a wide range of habitat types within their large home ranges.
Wolverines are thought to prefer undisturbed areas of coniferous forest
(Pasitschniak-Arts and Larivière 1995). They are particularly sensitive to human
disturbance and avoid disturbed areas (Banci 1994).
Wolverines were photographed on two occasions in the central portion of the

LSA. Historical field data from the Oil Sands Region show wolverine occurring
in wooded bog (BTNN), low-bush cranberry aspen-white spruce (d2), wooded
fen (FTNN), Labrador tea-subhygric black spruce-jack pine (g1) and shrubby
swamp (SONS).
7.3 “SENSITIVE” SPECIES
7.3.1 American Bittern
The American bittern is provincially listed as “Sensitive” (ASRD 2006, internet

site). The Canadian Wildlife Service’s Northern Prairie and Parkland Waterbird
Conservation Plan lists the American bittern as a species of high concern
(Priestley 2002). Three American bitterns were incidentally recorded in the
LSA.
American bitterns breed in suitable habitat throughout Alberta, although nowhere

is it abundant (Semenchuck 1992). A solitary and secretive species, they breed
in marshes, swamps, moist meadows, wet alder or willow thickets, always in
areas with dense growth of emergent vegetation or tall grasses (Semenchuck
1992). In a Manitoba study, American bittern selected areas with higher
proportions of tall shrubs at a fine spatial scale (Hays 2006). At a broader scale
(5 km scale), the species responded positively to the amount of wetlands. Nests
are constructed on a matted platform of reeds, rushes and small sticks above the
water table. The bittern’s diet is carnivorous and includes frogs, small fish and
crustaceans.
Golder Associates
December 2010
7.3.2 American White Pelican
Once designated as an “Endangered” species in Alberta (Semenchuk 1992),

populations of the American white pelican have increased, allowing this
designation to be downgraded to “Sensitive”. American white pelicans were
identified in and around the LSA through FWMIS records. None were observed
during field surveys.
Typical habitat for the American white pelican is a shallow, turbid lake remote
from human activity with extensive shallows near shore and good fish
populations (Semenchuk 1992). Nesting occurs in colonies and threats are
reduced to the species through the use of comprehensive colony protection.
Threats to pelicans in the province include human disturbance of breeding
colonies, drought and possible disease risk (ASRD 2006, internet site).
7.3.3 Barred Owl
The barred owl is provincially listed as “Sensitive” (ASRD 2006, internet site).
Two barred owls were heard during playback surveys and two more were
detected incidentally in the LSA.
Barred owls are distributed primarily in the southern boreal forest according to
Semenchuck (1992) and records in the region likely represent the northern limits
of the species range in Alberta. The typical breeding habitat of this species is
mature forest with nearby open country for foraging. Olsen et al. (2006, internet
site) determined that barred owls nested primarily in balsam poplar snags more
than 34 cm diameter at breast height (dbh) and nest trees were surrounded by
large, more than 34 cm dbh, balsam poplar trees and snags. Nesting territories
contained a variety of habitats including young (less than 80-year-old),
deciduous-dominated stands, old deciduous and coniferous-dominated stands,
wooded bogs and recent clear-cuts. Their diets consist of a wide variety of small
mammals and birds.
Russell (2008), an ASRD wildlife biologist in Grand Prairie, developed an

empirical resource selection function model for barred owls in northeastern
Alberta. Model selection results suggest that barred owls are selecting for large
mixedwood forest stands that are near old-growth forest and are far from open
fields. This apparent avoidance of open fields may be due to a possible increased
risk of predation by great horned owls in open areas (Russell 2008).
Barred owls are a species of special management concern because of their

dependency on mature or old growth forests and suspected declining population
Golder Associates
December 2010
trends. Despite selection of old forest for nesting, barred owls do not appear to
completely avoid anthropogenic disturbance (Olsen et al. 2006, internet site).
7.3.4 Bay-Breasted Warbler
The bay-breasted warbler is provincially listed as “Sensitive” (ASRD 2006,

internet site). Thirteen bay-breasted warblers were identified during breeding bird
surveys in the LSA.
Bay-breasted warblers use a range of ecosite phases and wetlands types, although
extensive stands of spruce are preferred (Semenchuk 1992). They also use mixed
stands of spruce, pine and tamarack (Kirk et al. 1996). Most nests are located in
spruce trees. They feed on caterpillars, flies, beetles, moths and budworms
(Norton 2001). Budworm outbreaks are known to affect the territorial behaviour
of bay-breasted warblers, as well as their clutch size.
Loss of habitat in their wintering ranges is a limiting factor for bay-breasted

warblers. Their dependence on old growth forest for breeding is also a limiting
factor (Norton 2001). Shorter forest-cutting cycles, which reduce the area of
mature forests, will contribute to creating less attractive breeding habitat for this
species.
7.3.5 Canada Lynx
The Canada lynx is provincially listed as “Sensitive” (ASRD 2006, internet site).
Canada lynx and their tracks were recorded during both the photographic bait
station and winter wildlife tracking surveys in the LSA.
The Canada lynx is adapted to boreal forest ecosystems typical of north central
Canada and Alaska, representing the majority of their geographic range. These
medium-sized felids prey predominantly on snowshoe hares and Canada lynx
populations fluctuate in 10-year cycles in close association with the hares they
depend on (Boutin et al. 1995). Thus, Canada lynx densities can vary
dramatically over time. In the boreal forest, this translates to a 3- to 17-fold
variation in Canada lynx numbers throughout a hare cycle (Mowat et al. 2000).
Increasing harvests from 2007 to 2009 suggest that Canada lynx may currently be
increasing toward a peak in their 10-year cycle.
Canada lynx prefer open mature coniferous forests, late successional forest stages
and black spruce bogs (Stardom 1989). However, habitat selection depends on
the availability of its primary prey species, the snowshoe hare (Koehler and
Aubry 1994; Krebs et al. 2001; Mowat et al. 2000). Canada lynx have high
Golder Associates
December 2010
reproductive potential, but this is realized only during the increase to the high
phase of the hare cycle in the boreal forest; during other years, reproduction is
close to nil (Mowat et al. 2000).
In Alberta, Canada lynx populations are limited by available prey. Loss of

snowshoe hare habitat may have a detrimental effect on Canada lynx populations.
Canada lynx are considered a furbearing species in Alberta and are actively
pursued by trappers. Overtrapping in times of high fur demand is detrimental to
Canada lynx populations. Concern has been expressed for the stability of Canada
lynx populations if high fur prices coincide with a low period in the population
cycle (Westworth and Associates 2002).
7.3.6 Black-Throated Green Warbler
The black-throated green warbler is listed as a “Sensitive” species in Alberta

(ASRD 2006, internet site). One black-throated green warbler was observed
during the breeding bird surveys conducted in the LSA.
The black-throated green warbler inhabits boreal coniferous forest and

transitional area between coniferous and deciduous forests in northern Alberta
(Morse and Poole 2005, internet site). It is commonly associated with conifers,
but may also be found in mixed coniferous-deciduous forests or pure deciduous
forests. Nests have been located in both deciduous (e.g., birch, balsam poplar)
and white spruce trees. They feed entirely on insects during the summer,
frequently on large volumes of caterpillars. During baseline surveys the black-
throated green warbler was observed in the horsetail balsam poplar white spruce
(f2) ecosite phase.
Forest fragmentation as a result of anthropogenic change has an adverse effect on

the presence and abundance of this species in the boreal forest of Alberta.
7.3.7 Brown Creeper
The brown creeper is listed as a “Sensitive” species in Alberta (ASRD 2006,

internet site). Three brown creepers were recorded during baseline breeding bird
surveys.
The brown creeper is a year-round resident of Alberta and inhabits mature

mixedwood and coniferous forests. Creepers commonly nest under the loose
bark of a tree, feeding on insects, spiders and other small invertebrates and
occasionally on seeds (Semenchuk 1992). Habitat loss is likely to be one of the
main limiting factors for this species. Brown creepers in and around the LSA
Golder Associates
December 2010
were observed in low-bush cranberry aspen-white spruce (d2) and low-bush

cranberry white spruce (d3) ecosite phases.
7.3.8 Cape May Warbler
Cape May warblers are listed as “Sensitive” (ASRD 2006, internet site).
Twenty-eight Cape May warblers were detected during breeding bird surveys in
and around the LSA.
Cape May warblers use, and were observed in a range of ecosite phases and
wetlands types. The preferred vegetation type is extensive stands of spruce
(Semenchuk 1992). They also use mixed stands of spruce, pine and tamarack
(Kirk et al. 1996), but most nests are located in spruce trees. Cape May warblers
were detected primarily in coniferous mixedwood forest ecosites phases in and
around the LSA. They feed on caterpillars, flies, beetles, moths and budworms
(Norton 2001).
Loss of habitat in their wintering ranges is a limiting factor for Cape May
warblers. Their dependence on old growth forest for breeding is also a limiting
factor (Norton 2001). Shorter forest-cutting cycles, which reduce the area of
mature forests, will contribute to creating less attractive breeding habitat for this
species.
7.3.9 Common Nighthawk
Common nighthawks are recognized federally as “Threatened” and are on

Schedule 1 of the SARA (Species at Risk Public Registry 2010, internet site).
Although the Alberta population of the common nighthawk is considered large,
there has been an apparent decline (ASRD 2006, internet site). Declines may be
due to pesticide use and the subsequent effect on food supply (ASRD 2006,
internet site). Ten common nighthawks were identified incidentally during field
surveys in the LSA (Attachment C). Common nighthawks nest in or near a wide
variety of open or semi-open habitat, including forest clearings, burned areas,
fields, gravel pits, barren rock and beaches. They may breed in urban areas on
tar or gravel roofs (COSEWIC 2007b; Semenchuk 1992). Common nighthawks
feed primarily on flying insects (COSEWIC 2007b; Semenchuk 1992).
7.3.10 Common Yellowthroat
Common yellowthroats are provincially listed as “Sensitive” (ASRD 2006,

internet site). Sixteen common yellowthroats were detected during breeding bird
surveys.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Common yellowthroats generally breed in open, damp and brushy areas

including dense willow shrubbery in open marshes, bogs, muskegs, wet meadows
and around beaver ponds (Semenchuck 1992). Although typically associated
with marshes, streamside thickets, wet meadows and other wetlands, common
yellowthroats are also found in drier upland habitats as long as there is abundant
and dense undergrowth for foraging and nesting. Yellowthroats primarily eat
insects gleaned from low vegetation or on the ground.
Where cowbirds are present, they commonly parasitize yellowthroat nests

(Semenchuck 1992).
7.3.11 Fisher
The fisher is provincially listed as “Sensitive” (ASRD 2006, internet site). The
CEMA SEWG selected fisher as a candidate for long-term monitoring during
regional corridor monitoring workshops in 2006 because this species is
considered important from both an environmental and resource use perspective
(Section 2.4). Fisher/marten tracks were observed during winter track count
surveys and four fishers were photographed at photographic bait stations in the
LSA.
Fisher occur most commonly in landscapes dominated by mature coniferous and

mixedwood forest cover, with a preference for late seral stage forests (Powell and
Zielinski 1994; Smith 1993). Virtually all studies of fisher ecology have
documented the need for overhead cover. Fisher have been reported by many
researchers to select older seral stands with continuous canopy cover to provide
security cover from predators (e.g., Arthur et al. 1989).
Fisher are opportunistic predators and make use of many species of prey ranging
from insects to carrion. However, it appears that the most important food sources
are snowshoe hares and other small mammals such as voles (Powell 1993). Food
habitat is therefore closely associated with the cover habitats of their dominant
prey.
Females are generally sexually mature at two years of age, bearing one to four
young in each litter in March or April (Pattie and Fisher 1999). They are very
selective when choosing a denning site and prefer to establish dens high in
large-diameter deciduous tree cavities, although dens can also be located on the
ground (Powell and Zielinski 1994; Weir 2003). Fishers are reported to use
forested riparian zones frequently because these areas supply many habitat
features that they require, such as large spruce trees and coarse woody debris for
resting, and large-diameter deciduous trees for denning.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Human activity is the major limiting factor for fishers. Habitat loss as a result of
development reduces the amount of suitable habitat within a region and results in
a reduced capability of the land to support the resident population (Powell and
Zielinski 1994). Fisher are also a furbearing species and as such are limited by
trapping when prices for pelts are high (Powell and Zielinski 1994).
Overtrapping has the potential to extirpate fisher from an area and this may be
exacerbated by a natural cycle in fisher numbers based on the availability of
snowshoe hares (Bowman et al. 2006).
7.3.12 Great Grey Owl
The great grey owl is provincially listed as “Sensitive” (ASRD 2006, internet
site). Three great grey owls were observed incidentally during wildlife surveys
conducted in the LSA.
Great grey owls are a circumpolar species in the boreal forest of North America
and Eurasia. They prefer areas of coniferous, deciduous and mixedwood forests
interspersed with bogs, fens and other open spaces (Bull and Duncan 1993;
Nero 1979; Semenchuk 1992). In some areas, tamarack/black spruce
communities appear to be the preferred nesting habitat. Suitable nesting habitat
is probably limited by the availability of nest structures, generally nests of other
raptors and prey. Small rodents are primary prey for the species.
Habitat loss is the primary limiting factor affecting the great grey owl population.
Habitat loss associated with development affects this species through loss of
suitable nest sites (Bull and Duncan 1993) and loss of prey that can lead to
starvation and death of great grey owls even if suitable nest sites are present
(Bull and Duncan 1993). Other limiting factors for the great grey owl include
collisions with vehicles, shooting, predation from other bird and mammalian
species, accidental trapping and exposure to poisons used to control small
mammal populations (Bull and Duncan 1993).
7.3.13 Hoary Bat
The hoary bat is listed as “Sensitive” in Alberta (ASRD 2006, internet site). This
bat’s listing was upgraded in 2005 as a result of concerns regarding the effects of
wind energy on this species during migration. The hoary bat was not captured in
the LSA, but the species was identified during echolocation monitoring surveys
in and around the Project LSA. Specifically, hoary bats were detected at an
overall rate of 0.1 passes/hr in the low-bush cranberry aspen (d1), low-bush
cranberry aspen–white spruce (d2) and Labrador tea/horsetail white spruce–black
spruce (h1) ecosite phases.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Hoary bats are one of America's largest bats and are among the most widespread
of all bats in Canada, found throughout most of the country (Bat Conservation
International 2010, internet site). They typically roost 3 to 4.5 m up in trees
along forest borders. In the summer, hoary bats do not emerge to feed until after
dark; they may make round trips of up to 39 km foraging from day roosts.
Between late summer and early fall, they start migration south to subtropical and
possibly even tropical areas to spend the winter. They are often found migrating
with flocks of birds. For the rest of the year, hoary bats remain solitary.
7.3.14 Least Flycatcher
The least flycatcher is provincially listed as “Sensitive” (ASRD 2006, internet

site). Thirteen least flycatchers were identified during breeding bird surveys in
the LSA.
The least flycatcher breeds in semi-open, second-growth, and mature deciduous

and mixedwoods in the boreal forest (Briskie 1994). Nests are built in a variety
of trees, frequently deciduous varieties. The species feeds almost exclusively on
insects.
Least flycatchers are considered to be an interior forest species and are adversely
affected by logging and other anthropogenic disturbances that result in forest
fragmentation.
7.3.15 Olive-Sided Flycatcher
The olive-sided flycatcher is provincially listed as “Secure” (ASRD 2006,

internet site), and federally listed as “Threatened” by COSEWIC and
“Schedule 1: Threatened” by SARA (Species at Risk Public Registry 2010,
internet site). Three olive-sided flycatchers were detected in the vicinity of the
LSA during baseline surveys.
Olive-sided flycatchers are associated with a range of open areas containing tall
trees or snags for perching and foraging (Altman and Sallabanks 2000, internet
site). Open areas might include burned forest, open to semi-open mature forest
stands, forest edges near natural openings such as meadows, rivers and wetlands
or forest edges near human-made openings such as logged areas (Altman and
Sallabanks 2000, internet site). Preferred habitat in the boreal forest tends to
occur in coniferous or mixedwood forest near wetlands (Erskine 1977). In
western Canada, the olive-sided flycatcher is associated with early to
mid-successional post-fire or post-clearcut forest with residual live trees, as well
as old-growth mixedwood forest (Schieck and Song 2006). Most nests are
Golder Associates
December 2010
located in conifers and are often located beneath thick canopy cover (COSEWIC
2007a). Olive-sided flycatchers in the vicinity of the LSA were observed in
graminoid fen (FONG), shrubby swamp (SONS) and open bog (BONN)
wetlands types.
7.3.16 Pileated Woodpecker
The pileated woodpecker is provincially listed as “Sensitive” (ASRD 2006,

internet site). Three pileated woodpeckers were observed incidentally during
field surveys in the LSA.
Pileated woodpeckers are widely distributed residents of the boreal forest, most
notable for being tree cavity excavators and for their use of bark/wood-dwelling
insects as their primary food source (Bonar 1995). Consequently, they are
associated with mature forest types with high densities of large-diameter snags
and downed wood (Westworth and Associates 2002). The preferred nesting sites
are live aspen or balsam poplars. Pileated woodpeckers are also known to
excavate nests in dead snags and paper birch (Bonar 1995). Ants and beetle
larvae are primary prey throughout the year.
While the pileated woodpecker population is stable in the province, its

dependence on mature to old growth forests places this species at potential risk to
timber harvest activities and other forest clearing activities. However, harvesting
practices that retain clumps of mature trees or leave snags for wildlife can be
beneficial for pileated woodpeckers.
7.3.17 Red Bat
The red bat is listed as “Sensitive” in Alberta. This bat’s listing was upgraded in
2005 a result of concerns regarding the effects of wind energy development on
this species during migration. Red bats were not captured in the LSA but the
species was detected during echolocation monitoring surveys in and around the
Project LSA. Specifically, red bats were detected at an overall rate of
0.1 passes/hr in the blueberry jack pine–aspen (b1), blueberry aspen (white birch)
(b2) and low-bush cranberry aspen–white spruce (d2) ecosite phases.
The red bat is North America's most abundant “tree bat”. For the most part, red
bats are solitary, coming together only to mate and to migrate (Bat Conservation
International 2010, internet site). Unlike most bats, Eastern red bats often give
birth to twins and can have litters of up to five young, though three young is
average. In the summertime red bats are among the earliest evening fliers,
Golder Associates
December 2010
typically feeding around forest edges, in clearings or around street-lights where

they consume predominantly moths.
In September they begin their southward migration, usually to frost-free areas in

the southern United States where they probably “hibernate” in hollow trees. They
are known to survive body temperatures as low as -4°C. They begin their
northward journey in April, reaching Canada in late May.
7.3.18 Sandhill Crane
The sandhill crane is provincially listed as “Sensitive” (ASRD 2006, internet

site). The population size of sandhill crane in Alberta is unknown (ASRD 2006,
internet site). Six sandhill cranes were observed incidentally during baseline
surveys within the LSA.
Sandhill crane breeding habitat includes wetlands with some open water and tall
grasses, relatively free from human disturbance (Semenchuk 1992). Fens, bogs
and large open shallow marshes usually meet these conditions. The major
limiting factor for sandhill crane populations is human disturbance (ASRD 2006,
internet site). As settlement and development increases, areas of suitable habitat
have been abandoned as breeding and migratory stopping points. Additionally,
the removal of wetlands through development has been shown to be a limiting
factor (Stephen 1979).
7.3.19 Sharp-Tailed Grouse
The sharp-tailed grouse is provincially listed as “Sensitive” (ASRD 2006,

internet site). A single sharp-tailed grouse was observed incidentally during the
2009 aerial ungulate survey.
Although sharp-tailed grouse occur throughout Alberta, they are most commonly
found in open grasslands and shrublands in the central and southern portions of
the province. In the boreal forests of north-eastern Alberta, sharp-tailed grouse
use open habitats created by fire and industrial processes and may also use
muskegs and bogs (Semenchuk 1992). Sharp-tailed grouse breed in spring at
leks, where several males will display to attract females. Sharp-tailed grouse are
common in Alberta, but are considered sensitive because populations appear to
be declining (ASRD 2006, internet site).
Golder Associates
December 2010
7.3.20 Silver-Haired Bat
The silver-haired bat’s listing has been upgraded recently to “Sensitive” as a

result of concerns regarding the effects of wind energy development on this
species during migration. Twenty-five silver-haired bats were captured in the
LSA and the species was also detected during call monitoring surveys.
Silver-haired bats are among the most common bats in forested areas of North
America, most closely associated with coniferous or mixed coniferous and
deciduous forest types, especially in areas of old growth (Bat Conservation
International 2010, internet site). They form maternity colonies almost
exclusively in tree cavities or small hollows. Silver-haired bats, like many
forest-roosting bats, will switch roosts throughout the maternity season.
Silver-haired bats feed predominantly in disturbed areas, sometimes at tree-top

level, but often in small clearings and along roadways or watercourses (Bat
Conservation International 2010, internet site). Though their diets vary widely,
these bats feed chiefly on small, soft-bodied insects. Silver-haired bats have been
known to feed on flies, midges, leafhoppers, moths, mosquitoes, beetles, crane
flies, lacewings, caddisflies, ants, crickets and occasionally on spiders.
Managing forests for diverse age structure and maintaining forested corridors are
important to these bats because of their dependency on mature and old growth
terrestrial habitats.
7.3.21 Sora
The sora is provincially listed as “Sensitive” (ASRD 2006, internet site). The
sora is a member of the rail family. One sora was recorded during marsh bird
surveys in the LSA.
The most abundant and widely distributed North American rail, the sora breeds
primarily in marshes dominated by emergent vegetation. Semenchuck (1992)
stated that wherever ponds, meandering streams, marshes, sloughs or wet
meadows were found, soras were likely also present. Preistley (2002) also found
the sora to be the most common rail detected during the Marsh Bird Monitoring
Program Pilot. They feed primarily on seeds of wetlands plants and on
invertebrates.
Preservation of emergent wetlands that provide breeding, migration, and

wintering habitats are important conservation measures for this
wetlands-dependent species (Melvin and Gibbs 1996). Soras benefit from
Golder Associates
December 2010
policies and management that eliminate or minimize effects of wetlands

degradation and emphasize the restoration of or re-establishment of wetlands
habitats.
7.3.22 Boreal (Western) Toad
The boreal (western) toad is provincially listed as “Sensitive” (ASRD 2006,

internet site), federally listed as “Special Concern” by COSEWIC, and is on
Schedule 1 of the SARA (Species at Risk Public Registry 2010, internet site).
Most of the boreal toad populations in Alberta are documented west and south of
the LSA (Russell and Bauer 2001). The trend in the boreal toad population in
Alberta is unknown (ASRD 2006, internet site). Two boreal toads were recorded
during the amphibian call surveys within the LSA.
The boreal toad prefers shallow water with a sandy bottom in either permanent or
temporary waterbodies (usually pools or small ponds) for breeding habitat.
Summer habitat for boreal toads includes areas around waterbodies and
watercourses. However, it is largely a terrestrial species that may burrow into
loose soil or seek shelter (as well as dig hibernacula) in pre-existing burrows of
small rodents (Russell and Bauer 2001). Threats to boreal toads include
pollution and pesticides (ASRD 2006, internet site).
7.4 “UNDETERMINED” SPECIES
7.4.1 Yellow Rail
The yellow rail is considered a species of “Special Concern” by COSEWIC and

is listed on Schedule 1 of SARA as a species of “Special Concern” (Species at
Risk Public Registry 2010, internet site). In Alberta, this bird has
“Undetermined” status because information on population size and trends is
lacking. Yellow rails have been recorded only sporadically in the Oil Sands
Region, despite landscape-scale surveys throughout the region. It appears likely
that the population is distributed sporadically across suitable habitat and in very
low numbers. Over time, as more yellow rail surveys are conducted, a better
understanding of their relative abundance and distribution in the Oil Sands
Region is expected.
Yellow rail breeding habitat generally consists of fresh or brackish shallow wet
meadows and sedge marshes with little to no woody vegetation (Goldade et al.
2002). In the Oil Sands Region, this equates to graminoid fen (FONG), shrubby
fen (FONS) and graminoid marsh (MONG) wetlands types (Halsey et al. 2003).
Golder Associates
December 2010
Baseline wildlife data have been collected for several oil sands projects in and
around the Muskeg River drainage from 2001 through 2009. Sixteen yellow rails
have been recorded in five different project study areas in the Oil Sands Region
between 2003 and 2009. Twelve of the 16 detections occurred in graminoid fen
(FONG) or shrubby fen (FONS) habitat. As yellow rail surveys are such a recent
addition to survey protocols in the Oil Sands Region, the ability to make
comparisons to other projects in the area is limited. Over time, as more yellow
rail surveys are conducted, a better understanding of their relative abundance and
distribution in the Oil Sands Region is expected. In the LSA, the single yellow
rail observation was in the shrubby fen (FONS) wetlands type.
7.5 “SECURE” KEY INDICATOR RESOURCES
The following species are listed as “Secure” in Alberta (ASRD 2006, internet
site), but are wildlife KIRs for the Project.
7.5.1 Beavers
Beavers are a species of traditional, economic and ecological importance.

Beaver sign (i.e., lodges, dams and food caches) was frequently observed during
the beaver aerial surveys in and around the LSA.
Beavers are widespread and occur in most places where water is deep enough to
allow for food storage and access to a lodge under the winter ice
(Novak et al. 1987). The major habitat requirements of beavers are waterbodies
suitable for year-round occupation and an adjacent supply of deciduous woods or
shrublands (Slough and Sadleir 1977; Todd 1978). Colonies are most commonly
associated with deciduous tree/shrub early successional communities or edaphic
climax plant communities (Slough and Sadleir 1977). Beavers are generalists,
eating a great number of woody and herbaceous species (Harper 1969). In
northern regions, preference is for the bark of trees and shrubs, particularly aspen
and balsam poplar. Federal and provincial governments have established
conservation plans for the beaver in co-operation with local trappers. Beavers
have been reintroduced into many areas where early trappers eradicated beavers.
As a result of reintroductions and improved trapping laws, there has been a
tremendous increase in the number of beavers in Canada, to the degree that they
are considered pests along many urban watercourses.
7.5.2 Black Bears
Black bears are a CEMA-SEWG ratified indicator species. Black bears were
photographed 30 times during the remote camera bait station program and black
Golder Associates
December 2010
bears and their sign were observed incidentally on several occasions during field
surveys.
Although found in a variety of habitats, black bears prefer heavily wooded areas
and dense bushland. In the Fort McMurray area, black bears have been reported
to prefer terrestrial habitats (relative to availability), exhibit high use of
aspen-jack pine and aspen-conifer mixedwoods, avoid muskeg and are attracted
to dump sites (Fuller and Keith 1980a; Tietje and Ruff 1980). Black bears are
omnivorous, eating vegetation such as berries and nuts, fish and small mammals.
In the Conklin area, black bears are subject to hunting and trapping pressures that
has lowered their densities relative to unhunted bear populations within the Cold
Lake Air Weapons Range (Czetwertynski 2004, pers. comm.).
7.5.3 Moose
Moose are a CEMA-SEWG ratified indicator species and are highly sought after
for both recreational hunting and sustenance by Aboriginal groups. Thirty-two
moose were observed during aerial surveys, yielding a minimum density of
0.038 moose/km2. Forty-five moose tracks were recorded during the winter track
count surveys for a density of 0.08 tracks/km-day in and near the LSA. These
densities are below those recorded for other projects in the area. For example,
moose densities during aerial surveys for Suncor Voyageur South and Total
Joslyn Mine Expansion were 0.25 and 0.16 moose/km2, respectively (Suncor
2007, unpublished data). Track densities in the area ranged from
0.34 tracks/km-day reported for Shell Pierre River Mine (Shell 2007) to
0.86 tracks/km-day reported for Total Joslyn Mine Expansion (unpublished data).
Optimal moose habitat consists of shrub and ground strata within deciduous,
mixedwood and coniferous forests that offer edge or disturbed areas of early
successional vegetation (AXYS 2001). Previous field work in northern Alberta
(Golder 1999a, 2000b) has indicated that major river valleys act as important
wintering areas for moose.
7.6 NON-NATIVE AND INVASIVE SPECIES

The house sparrow and European starling are currently the only non-native
wildlife species that have been observed in the region. These species were
observed near oil sands facilities (McKeown 1994) and are common in
Fort McMurray. Beyond these human-influenced areas, the European starling
has only been reported once during one breeding bird survey in the region
(Golder 1997a). Neither the house sparrow nor the European starling was
observed during wildlife field surveys conducted within the LSA. The absence
of these species may indicate that they have not encroached into these areas. The
Golder Associates
December 2010
increase in distribution of these and other non-native species throughout the

region may indicate a change in the community and a potential change in
ecosystem function.
Several invasive wildlife species have been identified in the Oil Sands Region.
The brown-headed cowbird has been reported in natural areas (McLaren and
Smith 1985) and has been observed occasionally near oil sands facilities
(Golder 2004a). Coyotes, deer and corvids (e.g., crows) are also native invasive
species that have been recorded during field programs in the region. Even
raccoons may be invading the region (Latham 2008). With the exception of one
coyote observed incidentally and 2 photographs of coyotes obtained at bait
stations, native invasive species were not recorded during fieldwork conducted in
and around the LSA.
Golder Associates
December 2010
8 CLOSURE
We trust the above meets your present requirements. If you have any questions
or require additional details, please contact the undersigned.
GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD.
Report prepared by: Report reviewed by:
Brock Simons, M.Sc., P.Biol. Shawn McKeown, P.Eng.

Wildlife Analyst Principal, Oil Sands Division Director
Golder Associates
December 2010
9 REFERENCES
9.1 LITERATURE CITED
ACA and ASRD (Alberta Conservation Association and Alberta Sustainable

Resource Development). 2006. Alberta Volunteer Amphibian Monitoring
Program–Participants Manual. Alberta Conservation Association,
Edmonton, AB. 46 pp.
Adams, R.A. 2003. Bats of the Rocky Mountain West: Natural History, Ecology
and Conservation. University Press of Colorado. Boulder, CO.
Allen, J.R. 2005. Use of sightability models and resource selection functions to
enhance aerial population surveys of elk (Cervus elaphus) in Alberta.
Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Alsands (Alsands Energy Ltd.). 1978. Environmental Impact Assessment Presented

to Alberta Environment in Support of an Oil Sands Mining Project.
Calgary, AB. 401 pp.
Anderson, R.B. 1999. Peatland Habitat Use and Selection by Woodland Caribou
(Rangifer tarandus tarandus) in Northern Alberta. Master of Science
Thesis, University of Alberta. Edmonton, AB.
AOSC (Athabasca Oil Sands Corp.). 2009. Application for approval of the MacKay
River Commercial Project. Submitted to Alberta Energy Resources
Conservation Board and Alberta Environment.
Arthur, S.M., W.B. Krohn and J.R. Gilbert. 1989. Habitat use and diet of fishers.
Journal of Wildlife Management. 53:680–688.
ASRD (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development). 2009. WMU 531 Aerial

Moose (Alces alces) survey, February 2009. 25 pp.
ASRD. 2010. Aerial Ungulate Survey Protocol Manual. Alberta Sustainable

Resource Development. Fish and Wildlife Service. Edmonton, AB. 65 pp.
Golder Associates
December 2010
ASRD and ACA (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta

Conservation Association). 2010. Status of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos)
in Alberta: Update 2010. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development.
Wildlife Status Report No. 37 (Update 2010). Edmonton, AB. 44pp.
AXYS (AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd.). 1999. Track Surveys for the AEC
Foster Creek SAGD Project. Prepared for EBA Engineering Consultants
Ltd. 15 pp. + Appendices.
AXYS. 2000a. Winter Ungulate Surveys for the Proposed Petro-Canada MacKay
River Project. Prepared for Petro-Canada Oil and Gas. 16 pp.
AXYS. 2000b. Snowtracking Survey for the Proposed Muskeg River Pipeline.
February 2000. Prepared for ATCO Pipelines. 14 pp.
AXYS. 2001. Application for the Approval of the Surmont In–Situ Oil Sands
Project. Volume 2, Environmental Baseline Study. Prepared for Gulf
Canada Resources Ltd.
Bacon, M.M., K.H. Knopff and M.S. Boyce. 2009. Eastward movement of cougars
in Canada: an update from Cypress Hills Interprovincial Park. Wild Felid
Monitor 2:19.
Banci, V. 1994. Wolverine. In: Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon
and W.J. Zielinski. American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine. United
States Department of Agriculture. General Technical Report RM–254.
p.99-127.
Banfield, A.W.F. 1987. The Mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press.

Toronto, ON. 438 pp.
Bazin, R. and F.B. Baldwin. 2007. Canadian Wildlife Service Standardized

Protocol for the Survey of Yellow Rails (Coturnicops noveboracensis) in the
Prairie and Northern Region. Environment Canada, Winnipeg, MB. 22 pp.
BCC (Boreal Caribou Committee). 2003. Boreal Caribou Committee Quicknote:

Developing a Habitat Planning Target for Range Planning.
Beck, B. and J. Beck. 1988. 1988-1989 Alberta Owl Prowl Manual. 9 pp.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Beckingham, J.D. and J.H. Archibald. 1996. Field Guide to Ecosites of Northern
Alberta. Natural Resources Canada. Canadian Forest Service, Northwest
Region, Northern Forestry Centre. Special Report 5. Edmonton, AB.
Bibaud, J.A. and T. Archer. 1973. Fort McMurray Ungulate Survey of the
Mineable Portion of the Bituminous (Tar) Sands Area-No. 1. Alberta
Recreation, Parks and Wildlife. Edmonton, AB.
Bonar, R. 1995. Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus): Draft Habitat

Suitability Index (HSI) Model. In: Beck, B., J. Beck, W. Bessie, R. Bonar,
R. Smith, G. Stenhouse, M. Todd (eds.). 1995. Habitat Suitability Index
Models for 35 Wildlife Species in the Boreal Foothills of West-Central
Alberta. Foothills Model Forest. Hinton, AB.
Boutin, S., C.J. Krebs, R. Boonstra, M.R.T. Dale, S.J. Hannon, K. Martin, A.R.E.
Sinclair, J.N.M. Smith, R. Turkington, M. Blower. A. Byrom, F.I. Doyle, C.
Doyle, D. Hik, L. Hofer, A. Hubbs, T. Karels, D.L. Murray, V. Nams, M.
O’Donoghue, C. Rohner and S. Schweiger. 1995. Population Changes of
the Vertebrate Community During a Snowshoe Hare Cycle in Canada's
Boreal Forest. Oikos. 74:69-80.
Bovar–Concord Environmental. 1995. Environmental Impact Assessment for the

SOLV–EX Oil Sands Co–Production Experimental Project. Prepared for
SOLV–EX Corporations by BOVAR–CONCORD Environmental in
Association with AGRA Earth and Environmental, Hydroconsult EN3
Services Ltd., Fedirchuk, McCollough & Associates Ltd. and RL&L
Environmental Services Ltd.
Bowman, J., D. Donovan and R.C. Rosatte. 2006. Numerical response of fishers to
synchronous prey dynamics. J. Mamm. 87(3):480-484.
Boyd, M. 1977. Analysis of Fur Production Records by Individual Furbearing

Species for Registered Traplines in Alberta. 1970–1975. Alberta Fish and
Wildlife Division. Edmonton, AB. 72 pp.
BP Resources (BP Resources Canada Limited, Environmental Management

Associates and the DPA Group Inc.). 1985. Wolf Lake Development Plan,
Application to Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board for Approval
of Wolf Lake 2. Volumes I and II. Environmental Impact Assessment.
Prepared for BP Resources Canada Limited and Petro-Canada Inc. Calgary,
AB.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Brewster, D.A. 1988. Status of Woodland Caribou and Moose Populations Near Key
Lake in Northern Saskatchewan. Wildlife Branch, Saskatchewan Parks,
Recreation and Culture. Technical Report 88–1.
Briskie, J.V. 1994. Least Flycatcher (Empidonax minimus). In The Birds of North
America, No. 99 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of
Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.
Brusnyk, L.M., D.A. Westworth and D.L. Skinner. 1991. Ecology of Moose and
White-Tailed Deer in Relation to the Phased Development of the Cold Lake
Heavy Oil Extraction Facility. Prepared for Esso Resources Canada Ltd.
Calgary, AB.
Bull, E.L. and J.R. Duncan. 1993. Great Grey Owl. The Birds of North America.
Poole, A. and F. Gill (eds.). No 41. The American Ornithologists' Union,
Philadelphia. The Academy of Natural Sciences. Washington, DC.
Bursey, C.R. and S.R. Goldberg. 1998. Helminths of the Canadian Toad, Bufo
hemiophrys (Amphibia: Anura) from Alberta, Canada. Journal of
Parasitology 84: 617-618.
Buskirk, S.W. and L.F. Ruggiero. 1994. American Marten. In: Ruggiero, L.F.,
K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski. American Marten,
Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine. United States Department of Agriculture.
General Technical Report RM–254:7-37.
Caceres, M.C. and M.J. Pybus. 1997. Status of the Northern Long-Eared Bat
(Myotis septentrioalis) in Alberta. Wildlife Status Report No. 3. Wildlife
Management Division, Alberta Environmental Protection. Edmonton, AB.
19 pp.
Canadian Natural (Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.). 2000. Primrose and Wolf
Lake (PAW) In-Situ Oil Sands Expansion Project. Volumes I to VI.
October 2000. Prepared by Golder Associates Ltd. Calgary, AB.
Canadian Natural. 2002. Horizon Oil Sands Project - Application for Approval.
Volume 1 Prepared by Canadian Natural Resources Limited. Volumes 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Prepared by Golder Associates Ltd. for Canadian Natural
Resources Limited. Submitted to Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and
Alberta Environment. June 2002. Calgary, AB.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Canadian Natural. 2006. Primrose In-Situ Oil Sands Project. Primrose East
Expansion Application for Approval. Volumes 1 to 6. Submitted to Alberta
Energy and Utilities Board and Alberta Environment. Prepared by Golder
Associates Ltd. Calgary, AB. Submitted January 2006.
Canadian Natural. 2007. Kirby In-Situ Oil Sands Project Application for approval.
Volumes 1-6. Submitted to Energy Resources Conservation Board and
Alberta Environment. September 2007. Calgary, AB.
CAPP (Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers). 2004. Caribou State of the

Science Backgrounder. Prepared by P. Bentham Golder Associates.
Prepared for: CAPP Caribou Working Group, Calgary, AB.
CEMA (Cumulative Environmental Management Association). 2006. Sustainable

Ecosystem Working Group (SEWG) Ratified Indicator List. Fort McMurray,
AB. 1 pp.
Cenovus (Cenovus FCCL Ltd). 2010. Application for Approval of the Cenovus
Narrows Lake Project. Integrated Application and Environmental Impact
Assessment. Submitted to the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation
Board and Alberta Environment, June 2010. Calgary, AB.
Conor Pacific (Conor Pacific Environmental Technologies Inc). 1998.

Environmental Impact Assessment for the Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred
Lake Upgrader Expansion Project. Vol IIb. Prepared for Syncrude Canada
Ltd.
Conway, C.J. 2009. Standardized North American Marsh Bird Monitoring

Protocols. Wildlife Research Report 2009-#02. U.S. Geological Survey,
Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Unit, Tuscon AZ.
Cook, R.D. and J.O. Jacobsen. 1978. The 1977 Fort McMurray AOSERP Moose
Census: Analysis and Interpretations of Results. Interdisciplinary Systems
Ltd. 43 pp.
Corben, C. 2009. AnaLook (version 3.7j). Computer software, accessible at

www.hoarybat.com.
Corben, C. and M.J. O’Farrell. 1999. Techniques for the effective use of Anabat in
identifying free-flying bat species. Anabat System Manual.
Golder Associates
December 2010
COSEWIC. 2001. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the yellow rail
Coturnicops noveboracensis in Canada. Committee on the Status of
Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 62 pp.
COSEWIC. 2002. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the western toad Bufo
boreas in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada. Ottawa. vi + 31 pp.
COSEWIC. 2003. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the wolverine
Gulo gulo in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada. Ottawa. vi + 41 pp.
COSEWIC. 2007a. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the olive-sided

flycatcher Contopus cooperi in Canada. Committee on the Status of
Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 25 pp.
COSEWIC. 2007b. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the common

nighthawk Chordeiles minor in Canada. Committee on the Status of
Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 25 pp.
COSEWIC. 2008. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Short-
eared Owl Asio flammeus in Canada. Committee on the Status of
Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 24 pp.
COSEWIC. 2009. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Northern
Leopard Frog Lithobates pipiens, Rocky Mountain population, Western
Boreal/Prairie populations and Eastern populations, in Canada. Committee
on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 69 pp.
Crampton, L.H. and R.M.R. Barclay. 1998. Selection of Roosting and Foraging
Habitat by Bats in Different-Aged Aspen Mixedwood Stands. Conservation
Biology. 12:1347-1358.
Deer Creek Energy (Deer Creek Energy Limited). 2006. Joslyn North Mine
Project. Volume 5. Submitted to Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and
Alberta Environment, February 2006. Calgary, AB.
Devon (Devon Canada Corporation). 2003. Application for the Approval of the
Devon Jackfish Project Including Supplementary Information Request,
Volume 2. Submitted to: Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and Alberta
Environment. November 2003. Calgary, AB.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Devon. 2006. Application for the Approval of the Devon Jackfish 2 Project.
Submitted to the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and Alberta
Environment. September 2006. Calgary AB.
Dickson, B.G., J.S. Jenness and P. Beier. 2005. Influence of vegetation, topography
and roads on cougar movement in southern California. Journal of Wildlife
Management 69:264-276.
Dickson, B. G., and P. Beier. 2002. Home range and habitat selection by adult
cougars in southern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:1235-
1245.
Duncan, J.A., T.R. Eccles and R.E. Salter. 1986. Sign Surveys of Mammal
Populations in the OSLO Oil Sands Sign Survey Study Area, December
1985 and February 1986. Prepared for Esso Resources Canada Ltd. by
LGL Ltd. Environmental Research Associates. Calgary, AB.
Dyer, S.J. 1999. Movement and Distribution of Woodland Caribou (Rangifer

tarandus caribou) in Response to Industrial Development in Northeastern
Alberta. Master of Science Thesis. University of Alberta. Edmonton, AB.
106 pp.
Dzus, E. 2000. Status of the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus tarandus) in

Alberta. Alberta Environment, Fisheries and Wildlife Management
Division and Alberta Conservation Association, Wildlife Status Report 30.
Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin and D. Wheye. 1988. The Birders Handbook: A Field
Guide to the Natural History of North American Birds. Simon and Schuster
Inc. New York, NY.
EnCana (EnCana FCCL Ltd.). 2009. Application for Approval of the EnCana
Christina Lake Thermal Expansion Project, Phases 1E, 1F and 1G.
Integrated Application and Environmental Impact Assessment. Submitted
to the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board and Alberta
Environment, October 2009. Calgary, AB.
Enerplus (Enerplus Resources Fund). 2008. Kirby Oil Sands Project Phase I
Wildlife Environmental Baseline and Assessment Report. Prepared by
Golder Associates Ltd.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Erskine, A.J. 1977. Birds in Boreal Canada: communities, densities, and

adaptations. Canadian Wildlife Service Report Series no. 41. 73 pp.
Esso (Imperial Oil Resources Ltd.). 1979. Final Environmental Impact Assessment,
Cold Lake Production Project. Volumes I, II and III. Calgary, AB.
Esso. 1997. Application for Approval of the Cold Lake Expansion Project. Volume
2. Environmental Impact Assessment, Part 1: Biophysical and Resource
Use Assessment. Prepared by AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd.
Fort McKay Environmental Services Ltd. 1996. Survey of Wildlife, Including

Aquatic Mammals, Associated with Riparian Habitat on the Syncrude
Canada Ltd. Aurora Mine Environmental Impact Assessment Local Study
Area. Fort McKay, AB.
Fort McKay Environmental Services Ltd. 1997. Summer Field Reconnaissance to

Determine the General Composition of Flora and Faunal Groups Present in
the Former Alsands Lease and Their Relation to Traditional Resources
Used by the Members of the Community of Fort McKay. Prepared for Shell
Canada Limited. Fort McKay, AB. 27 pp.
Fuller, T.K. and L.B. Keith. 1977. Wolf, Woodland Caribou and Black Bear
Population Dynamics in Northeastern Alberta Interim Report Prepared for
AOSERP Project TF1.1. Edmonton, AB.
Fuller, T.K. and L.B. Keith. 1980a. Summer Ranges, Cover-Type Use and Denning
of Black Bears Near Fort McMurray, AB. Canadian Field Naturalist.
94(1):80-82.
Fuller, T.K. and L.B. Keith. 1980b. Wolf Population Dynamics and Prey
Relationships in Northeastern Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management.
44:583-602.
Fuller, T.K. and L.B. Keith. 1981. Woodland Caribou Dynamics in Northeastern
Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management. 45:197-213.
Fuller T.K., E.C. York, S.M. Powell, T.A. Decker and R.M. DeGraaf. 2001. An
evaluation of territory mapping to estimate fisher density. Canadian Journal
of Zoology 79:1691–1696.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Gasaway, W.C., S.D. Dubois, D.J. Reed and S. Harbo. 1986. Estimating Moose
Population Parameters from Aerial Surveys. Alaska Department of Fish
and Game. 108 pp.
Gau, R.J., R. Mulders, T. Lamb and L. Gunn. 2001. Cougars (Puma concolor) in
Northwest Territories and Wood Buffalo National Park. Arctic. 54:
185-187.
Gibbs, J., P.S. Melvin and F.A. Reid. 1992. American Bittern. In The Birds of
North America, No. 18 (A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill, Eds.).
Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, DC: The
American Ornithologists’ Union.
Gilbert, F.F., S.A. Brown and M.E. Stoll. 1979. Semi-Aquatic Mammals:
Annotated Bibliography. Prepared for Alberta Oil Sands Environmental
Research Program. Department of Zoology, University of Guelph.
AOSERP Report 59. 167 pp.
Goldade, C.M., J.A. Dechant, D.H. Johnson, A.L. Zimmerman, B.E. Jamison, J.O.
Church and B.R. Euliss. 2002. Effects of Management Practices on Wetland
Birds: Yellow Rail. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown.
21 pp.
Golder (Golder Associates Ltd.). 1996. Shipyard Lake Environmental Baseline

Study. Prepared for Suncor Inc., Oil Sands Group. Fort McMurray, AB. 22
pp.
Golder. 1997a. Wildlife Baseline Conditions for Shell's Proposed Muskeg River
Mine Project. Prepared for Shell Canada Limited. Calgary, AB. 116 pp. +
Appendices.
Golder. 1997b. Winter Wildlife Surveys Conducted on Shell Canada's Lease 13.
March 1997. Prepared for Shell Canada Limited. Calgary, AB.
Golder. 1998a. Winter Wildlife Surveys–Steepbank River Valley, Shipyard Lake

and Leases 25 and 29 Uplands. Prepared for Suncor Energy Inc., Oil Sands.
Fort McMurray, AB. 51 pp. + Appendices.
Golder. 1998b. Wildlife Baseline Conditions for Project Millennium. Prepared for
Suncor Energy Inc., Oil Sands. Fort McMurray, AB.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Golder. 1999a. Suncor Oil Sands Project Wildlife Monitoring Program 1998-1999.
Submitted to Suncor Energy Inc., Oil Sands. Fort McMurray, AB. July
1999. 37 pp. + Appendices.
Golder. 1999b. 1999 Mobil Lease 36 Ungulate Aerial Survey. Prepared for Mobil
Oil Canada Properties. Calgary, AB.
Golder. 2000a. Oil Sands Regional Biodiversity Ranking. Prepared for Suncor
Energy Inc. Calgary, AB. 57 pp. + Appendices.
Golder. 2000b. Winter Wildlife Surveys for the TrueNorth Fort Hills Oil Sands
Project. Prepared for TrueNorth Exploration Canada Ltd. Calgary, AB.
Golder. 2000c. Christina Lake Thermal Project Wildlife, Wetlands and Rare Plant
Assessment Update 2000. Prepared for PanCanadian Petroleum Ltd.
Calgary, AB.
Golder. 2000d. Lease 13 West Albian Sands Winter Wildlife Track Count Surveys.
Submitted to Albian Sands Energy Inc., Fort McMurray, AB. August 2000.
40 pp. + Appendices.
Golder. 2000e. Suncor Millennium and Steepbank Mine Projects Wildlife

Monitoring Program & Wildlife Assessment Update 2000. Submitted to
Suncor Energy Inc., Oil Sands. Fort McMurray, AB. August 24, 2000.
32 pp. + Appendices.
Golder. 2000f. Supplemental Wildlife Baseline Surveys for Suncor Firebag In–Situ
Oil Sands Project Wildlife Baseline. Submitted to Suncor Energy Inc.
September 2000. In: Suncor Energy Inc. 2000. Firebag In-Situ Oil Sands
Application Supplemental Information. 21 pp. + Appendices.
Golder. 2001a. Lease 13 West Albian Sands Winter Track Count Surveys to
Investigate Potential Wildlife Movement Corridors. Prepared for Albian
Sands Energy Inc. Fort McMurray, AB. 72 pp. + Appendices.
Golder. 2001b. Christina Lake Thermal Project, Phase 1 Wildlife Monitoring

Program 2001. Prepared for PanCanadian Petroleum Limited., Calgary,
Alberta. 58 pp. + Appendices.
Golder. 2002a. Wildlife Environmental Setting for Jackpine Mine – Phase 1.

Prepared for Shell Canada Limited. 149 pp.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Golder. 2002b. Winter Aerial Ungulate Survey for the Petro-Canada Meadow
Creek Project. Prepared for Petro-Canada. Prepared by Golder Associates
Ltd. June 2002. 21 pp. + Appendices.
Golder. 2003a. 2003 Winter Aerial Caribou Survey for the Petro-Canada Meadow
Creek Project. Prepared for Petro-Canada. Prepared by Golder Associates
Ltd. March 2003. 25 pp. + Appendices.
Golder. 2003b. Suncor South Tailings Pond (STP) Project. Terrestrial Vegetation,
Wetlands and Forest Resources Baseline Report. Prepared for Suncor
Energy Inc. December 2003. Calgary, AB. 75 pp. + Appendices.
Golder. 2003c. 2002 Suncor Energy Wildlife Monitoring Program and Wildlife
Assessment Update Year 4. Prepared for Suncor Energy Inc., Fort
McMurray, AB. Prepared by Golder Associates Ltd.
Golder. 2004a. Christina Lake Thermal Project: Wildlife and Wetlands

Monitoring: Year 2. Prepared for EnCana Corporation, Oil Sands. February
2004.
Golder. 2004b. Suncor Energy Wildlife Monitoring Program and Wildlife

Assessment Update: Years 1999 - 2003. Prepared for Suncor Energy Inc.
Fort McMurray, AB. 23 pp.
Golder. 2004c. Environmental and Heritage Screening for the Fort McMurray-La
Loche Road Link. Prepared for Methy Construction. Calgary, AB.
Submitted July 2004.
Golder. 2005. Wildlife Environmental Setting Report for the Suncor Voyageur
Project. Prepared for Suncor Energy Inc. Calgary, AB. 163 pp.
Golder. 2007a. Wildlife Environmental Setting Report for the Suncor Voyageur
South Project. Prepared for Suncor Energy Inc. Fort McMurray, AB.
Submitted July 2007.
Golder. 2007b. Wildlife Environmental Setting Report for the Millennium Mine
Dump 9 Project. Prepared for Suncor Energy Inc. Fort McMurray, AB.
Submitted November 2007.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Golder. 2008. Update to the Wildlife Environmental Setting Report for the Suncor
Mine Dump 9 (MD9). Prepared for Suncor Energy Inc. Fort McMurray,
AB. 33 pp.
Green, J.E. 1979. The Ecology of Five Major Species of Small Mammals in the
AOSERP Study Area: A Review. Project LS 7.1.2. LGL Limited,
Environmental Research Associates. AOSERP Report 72.
Green, J. 1980. Small Mammal Populations of Northeastern Alberta. I.

Populations in Natural Habitats. Alberta Oil Sands Environmental Research
Program. Project L.S. 7.1.2.
Griffin, D.R., F.A. Webster and C.R. Michael. 1960. The Echolocation of Flying
Insects by Bats. Animal Behavior. 8:141-154.
Grossman, S.R., S.J. Hannon and A. Sanchez-Azofeifa. 2008. Responses of great

horned owls (Bubo virginianus), barred owls (strix varia), and saw-whet
owls (Aegolius acadicus) to forest cover and configuration in an
agricultural landscape in Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology
86:1165-1172.
Gulf (Gulf Canada Resources Ltd.). 2001. Application for the Approval of the
Surmont In-Situ Oil Sands Project. Prepared for Gulf Canada Resources
Limited by Colt Engineering Corporation, AXYS Environmental Consulting
Ltd., Campbell & Associates Ltd., Matrix Solutions Inc. and Nichols
Applied Management. March 2001. Volumes 1 to 3 + 6 Appendices.
Halsey, L.A., D.H. Vitt, D. Beilman, S. Crow, S. Mehelcic and R. Wells. 2003.
Alberta Wetlands Inventory Standards, Version 2.0. Alberta Sustainable
Resource Development, Resource Data Branch. Edmonton, AB. 54 pp.
ISBN: 0778523233.
Hamer, D., S. Herrero and K. Brady. 1991. Food and habitat used by grizzly bears,
Ursus arctos, along the continental divide in Waterton Lakes National Park,
Alberta. Canadian Field Naturalist 105:325-329.
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.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Hannon, S.J., C.A. Paszkowski, S. Boutin, J. DeGroot, S.E. Macdonald,

M. Wheatley and B.R. Eaton. 2002. Abundance and Species Composition
of Amphibians, Small Mammals, and Songbirds in Riparian Forest Buffer
Strips of Varying Widths in the Boreal Mixedwood of Alberta. Canadian
Journal of Forest Resources. 32:1784-1800.
Harper, J.L. 1969. The Role of Predation in Vegetational Diversity. Brookhaven

Symposia in Biology. CISTI. 22:48-62.
Harris, N.C., J.J. Kauffman and L.S. Mills. 2008. Inferences about ungulate
population dynamics derived from age ratios. Journal of Wildlife
Hauge, T.M. and L.B. Keith. 1981. Dynamics of Moose Populations in

Northeastern Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management. 45:573-597.
Hays, S. 2006. Distribution and habitat of the least bittern and other marsh bird
species. M.NRM thesis, University of Manitoba. Winnipeg, MB.
Holt, R.D. 1977. Predation, apparent competition and the structure of prey
communities. Theoretical Population Biology 12:197-229.
Hornocker, M. and S. Negri. 2009. Cougar: ecology and conservation. University

of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.
Hubbs, A. and T. Schowalter. 2003. Survey of Bats in Northeastern Alberta.

Alberta Species at Risk Report No. 68. Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta
Sustainable Resource Development. Edmonton, AB. 18 pp.
James, A.R.C. and A.K. Stuart-Smith. 2000. Distribution of Caribou and Wolves in
Relation to Linear Corridors. Journal of Wildlife Management. 64:154-159.
James, A.R.C., S. Boutin, D.M. Hebert and A.B. Rippin. 2004. Spatial separation
of caribou from moose and its relation to predation by wolves. Journal of
Wildlife Management 68:799-809.
Kirk, D.A., A.W. Diamond, K.A. Hobson and A.R. Smith. 1996. Breeding Bird
Communities of the Western and Northern Canadian Boreal Forest:
Relationship to Forest Type. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74:1749-1770.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Knopff, K.H. 2010. Cougar predation in a multi-prey system in west-central

Alberta. Dissertation. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Knopff, K.H., A.A. Knopff, A. Kortello and M.S. Boyce. 2010. Cougar kill rate
and prey composition in a multiprey system. Journal of Wildlfie
Koehler, G.M. and K.B. Aubry. 1994. Lynx. In: Ruggerio, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W.
Buskrirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski (Editors). The Scientific Basis for
Conserving Forest Carnivores American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and
Wolverine in the Western United States. General Technician Report. RM-
254. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station. Ft. Collins, CO. p. 74-98.
Krebs, C.J. 1989. Ecological Methodology. Harper and Row. New York, NY.
652 pp.
Krebs, C.J., S. Boutin and R. Boonstra (Editors). 2001. Ecosystem Dynamics of the
Boreal Forest: the Kluane Project. Oxford University Press. New York,
NY.
Krebs, C.J. 2009. Ecology: the experimental analysis of distribution and abundance
(sixth edition). Pearson Benjamin Cummings, San Francisco, CA. 655 pp.
Latham, A.D.M. 2008. Evidence of raccoon, Procyon lotor, range extension in

northern Alberta. Canadian Field Naturalist 122: 176-178.
Latham, A.D.M. 2009. Caribou-primary prey-wolf relationships in low-productivity

peatland complexes in northeastern Alberta. PhD thesis. University of
Alberta.
Laundre, J. W. and L. Hernandez. 2003. Winter hunting habitat of pumas Puma

concolor in northwestern Utah and southern Idaho, USA. Wildlife Biology
9: 123-129.
Magoun, A., N. Dawson, J. Ray and J. Bowman. 2005. Forest management

considerations for wolverine populations in areas of timber harvest in
Ontario. Unpublished MS.
McKeown, R. 1994. Avifauna Program Summary of 1993 Activities and Results.

Suncor Inc., Oil Sands Group. Fort McMurray, AB.
Golder Associates
December 2010
McLaren, P.L. and J.A. Smith. 1985. Ornithological Studies On and Near Crown
Lease 17, Northeastern Alberta, June-October 1984. Environmental
Research Monograph 1985–1.
McLoughlin, P.D., E. Dzus, B. Wynes and S. Boutin. 2003. Declines in

populations of woodland caribou. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:755-
761.
MEG (MEG Energy Corp.). 2005a. Application for Approval of the Christina Lake
Regional Project. Volumes 1 to 5. Submitted to Alberta Environment and
Alberta Energy and Utilities Board. Calgary, AB. Submitted August 2005.
MEG. 2005b. 2005 Winter Aerial Caribou Survey for the Christina Lake Regional
Project. Prepared for MEG Energy Corp. Prepared by Golder Associates
Ltd.
MEG. 2008. Christina Lake Regional Project - Phase 3 Wildlife Environmental

Setting Report. Prepared for MEG Energy Corp., Calgary, AB.
Melvin, S.M. and J.P. Gibbs. 1996. Sora (Porzana carolina). In The Birds of North
America, No. 250 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural
Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union,
Washington, D.C.
Michielsen, J. and A. Radvanyi. 1979. Great Canadian Oil Sands Small Mammal
Study, In Accordance with SA No. 571280.
Morrell, T.E., R.H. Yahner and W.L. Harkness. 1991. Factors affecting detection of
great horned owls by using broadcast vocalizations. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 19(4): 481-488.
Moruzzi, T.L., T.K. Fuller, R.M. De Graaf, R.T. Brooks and W. Li. 2002.
Assessing remotely triggered cameras for surveying carnivore distribution.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 30(2):380-386.
Moses, R.A. and S. Boutin. 2001. The Influence of Clear-Cut Logging and
Residual Leave Material on Small Mammal Populations in Aspen-
Dominated Boreal Mixedwoods. Canadian Journal of Forest Research.
31:483-495.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Mosher, J. A., M. R. Fuller and M. Kopeny. 1990. Surveying woodland raptors by

broadcast of conspecific vocalization. Journal of Field Ornithology.
61:453–461.
Mowat, G., K.G. Poole and M. O’Donoghue. 2000. Ecology of Lynx in Northern
Canada and Alaska. In L. F. Ruggiero, K. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, G. M.
Koehler, C. J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey, and R. R. Squires (ed.). Ecology and
Conservation of Lynx in the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, CO.
Munro, R.H.M., S.E. Nielsen, M.H. Price, G.B. Stenhouse and M.S. Boyce. 2006.
Seasonal and diel patterns of grizzly bear diet and activity in west-central
Alberta. Journal of Mammalogy 87:1112-1121.
Murray, L. and R.W. Pauls. 1983. Beaver and Muskrat Aerial Survey, Syncrude
Project Area. Prepared for Syncrude Canada Ltd.
Nero, R.W. 1979. Status Report on the Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa) in
Canada. Prepared for the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife
in Canada.
North American (North American Oil Sands Corporation). 2007. Application for
Approval. Kai Kos Dehseh SAGD Project, Environmental Baseline and
Impact Assessment, Wildlife. Volume 4, Section 11. Submitted to EUB
August 21, 2007.
Norton, M.R. 2001. Status of Bay-breasted Warbler (Dendroica castanea) in

Alberta. Fisheries and Wildlife Management Division, Alberta
Environment and Alberta Conservation Association. Wildlife Status Report
No. 32. Edmonton, AB. 21 pp.
Novak, M., J.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard and B. Malloch (Editors). 1987. Wild
Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America. Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources. Toronto, ON.
NRC (Natural Regions Committee). 2006. Natural Regions and Subregions of

Alberta. D. J. Downing and W. W. Pettapiece (ed.). Government of
Alberta. Publication Number T/852. 254 pp.
Golder Associates
December 2010
OPTI (OPTI Canada Inc.). 2000. Long Lake Project Application for Approval to
Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and to Alberta Environment. Volume 1
(Application) and Volumes 2 to 7 (EIA). December 2000. Calgary, AB.
OPTI/Nexen (OPTI Canada Inc. & Nexen Inc.). 2006. Application for Approval of
the Long Lake South Project, Volumes 1 to 5. Submitted to Alberta Energy
and Utilities Board and Alberta Environment. Calgary, AB. Submitted
December 2006.
Osnas, E.E. 2003. The role of competition and local habitat conditions for
determining occupancy patterns in grebes. Waterbirds 26:209-26.
Pasitschniak-Arts, M. and S. Larivière. 1995. Gulo gulo. Mammalian Species.

499:1-10.
Patriquin, K.J. 2001. Ecology of a Bat Community in Harvested Boreal Forest in

Northwestern Alberta. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Calgary. Calgary, AB.
Pattie, D. and C. Fisher. 1999. Mammals of Alberta. Lone Pine Publishing.

Pauls, R.W. 1984. Beaver and Muskrat Survey, Syncrude Project Area, October
1984. Prepared for Syncrude Canada Ltd.
Pauls, R.W. 1989. Beaver and Muskrat Survey, Syncrude Project Area, October
1988. Internal Report. Prepared by Syncrude Canada Ltd.
Pauls, R.W. 1991. Beaver and Muskrat Survey, Syncrude Project Area. October
1991. Internal Report Prepared by Syncrude Canada Ltd. 8 pp.
Pauls, R.W. and B.D. Arner. 1987. Beaver and Muskrat Survey. Syncrude Project
Area. October 1986 Internal Report. Prepared by Syncrude Canada Ltd.
8 pp.
Penner, D.F. 1976. Preliminary Baseline Investigations of Furbearing and Ungulate

Mammals Using Lease 17. Renewable Resources Consulting Services Ltd.
Environmental Research Monograph 1976–3. Edmonton, AB.
Petro-Canada (Petro-Canada Oil and Gas). 2001. Application for the Approval of
the Meadow Creek Project. Submitted to Alberta Energy and Utilities
Board and Alberta Environment. November 2001.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Pettapiece, W.W. 1986. Physiographic subdivisions of Alberta. Land Resource

Research Centre, Research Branch, Agricultural Canada, Ottawa. Map.
Poll, D.M. 1980. Muskrat Monitoring in the Peace–Athabasca Delta, 1973–1979.

Canadian Wildlife Service. Edmonton, AB.
Powell, R.A. 1993. The Fisher–Life History, Ecology and Behaviour. 2nd Edition.
The University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis, MI. 237 pp.
Powell, R.A. and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. Fisher. In: L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry,
S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski. American Marten, Fisher, Lynx
and Wolverine. United States Department of Agriculture. General
Technical Report RM–254. 184 pp.
Prescott, D.R.C., M.R. Norton and I.M.G. Michaud. 2001. A survey of yellow and
Virginia rails in Alberta using nocturnal call playbacks. Alberta
Conservation Association. Edmonton, AB. 20 pp.
Priestley, L. 2002. Alberta marsh monitoring program: Pilot Year 2002. Bird
Studies Canada.
Quayle, J.F., A.G. MacHutchinson and D.N. Jury. 2001. Modeling Moose
Sightability in South Central British Columbia. Alces (37).
Ralph, C.J. 1993. Designing and Implementing a Monitoring Program and the
Standards for Conducting Point Counts. In D. M. Finch and P. W. Stangel
(ed.). Status and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds. USDA
Forest Service. Fort Collins, CO. p. 204-207.
RIC (Resources Inventory Committee). 2001. Inventory Methods for Raptors.

British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. 133 pp.
Rio Alto (Rio Alto Exploration Ltd.). 2002. Kirby Project Application for Approval
to Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and to Alberta Environment.
Volumes 1,2,3,5,6 and 7. Prepared by Golder Associates Ltd. Calgary, AB.
Rode, K.D., C.T. Robbins and L.A. Shipley. 2001. Constraints on herbivory by
grizzly bears. Oecologia 128: 62-71.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Ruff, R.L., B.F. Young and B.O. Pelchat. 1976. A Study of the Natural Regulatory
Mechanisms Acting on an Unhunted Population of Black Bears Near Cold
Lake, Alberta. Unpublished Report. Alberta Department of Recreation
Parks and Wildlife, Fish and Wildlife Division.
Runge, W. and G. Wobeser. 1975. A Survey of Deer Winter Mortality in

Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Department of Tourism. Renewable Resource
Wildlife Technical Report 4.
Russell, A.P. and A.M. Bauer. 2000. The Amphibians and Reptiles of Alberta. A
Field Guide and Primer of Boreal Herpetology, Second Edition. University
of Calgary Press. Calgary, AB. 292 pp.
Russell, A.P. and A.M. Bauer. 2001. The Amphibians and Reptiles of Alberta.
University of Calgary Press. Calgary, AB. 264 pp.
Russell, M.S. 2008. Habitat selection of barred owls (Strix varia) across multiple
spatial scales in a boreal agricultural landscape in north-central Alberta.
MSc Thesis. University of Alberta, Edmonton.
Salter, R.E., J.A. Duncan and J.E. Green. 1986. Surveys of Ungulate Populations in
the OSLO Oil Sands Ungulate Study Area. December 1985 and 1986. LGL
Ltd. (ed.). Prepared for Esso Resources Canada Ltd. Calgary AB.
Salter, R.E. and J.A. Duncan. 1986. Surveys of Beaver and Muskrat Populations in
the OSLO Oil Sands Beaver and Muskrat Study Area, October 1985.
Prepared by LGL Limited, Environmental Research Associates. Prepared
for OSLO Oil Sands Project and Esso Resources Canada Ltd. Calgary, AB.
12 pp.
Schieck, J. and S.J. Song. 2006. Changes in bird communities throughout succession
following fire and harvest in boreal forests of western North America: a
literature review and meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Forest Research
36: 1299-1318.
Schneider, R.R., B. Wynes, S. Wasel, E. Dzus and M. Hiltz. 2000. Habitat Use by
Caribou in Northern Alberta, Canada. Rangifer. 20(1):43-50.
Schneider, R.R., G. Hauer, W.L. Adamowicz and S. Boutin. 2010. Triage for
conserving populations of threatened species: The case of woodland caribou
in Alberta. Biological Conservation 143(7): 1603-1611.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Schowalter, D.B. 1979. Notes on the distribution of bats in Alberta and

Saskatchewan. Blue Jay 37:179–187.
Schowalter, T. 2001. Summary of Observations Made During Bat Surveys in

Northeastern Alberta. 44 pp.
Searing, G.F. 1979. Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Association of Beavers,

Muskrats, Mink, and River Otters in the AOSERP Study Area, Northeastern
Alberta. AOSERP Report No. 73. Prepared by LGL Limited,
Environmental Research Associates. 119 pp.
Semenchuk, G.P. 1992. The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Alberta. Federation of

Alberta Naturalists. Edmonton, AB. 393 pp.
Shell (Shell Canada Limited). 2007. Jackpine Mine Expansion & Pierre River
Mine Project Application and Environmental Impact Assessment. Volume 5.
Submitted to Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and Alberta Environment,
December 2007. Calgary, AB.
Sinsch, U. 1990. Migration and Orientation in Anuran Amphibians. Ethnology,

Ecology and Evolution. 2:65-79.
Skinner, D.L. and D.A. Westworth. 1981. Preliminary Studies of Mammals in

EnCana Christina Lake Expansion Project 80 Study Area. Prepared for
Canstar Oil Sands Ltd. Edmonton AB. 62 pp.
Slough, B.G. and R.M.F.S. Sadleir. 1977. A Land Capability Classification System
for Beaver (Castor canadensis kuhl). Canadian Journal of Zoology.
55:1324-1335.
Smith, D.G. 1987. Biology and Conservation of Northern Forest Owls Symposium
Proceedings. p. 304-307.
Smith, H.C. 1993. Alberta Mammals: An Atlas and Guide. The Provincial Museum
of Alberta. Edmonton, AB. 239 pp. + Maps.
Southern Pacific (Southern Pacific McKay Resource Corporation). 2009.

Application for the Southern Pacific Resource Corp. McKay SAGD Project.
Submitted to Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and Alberta Environment,
May 2009. Calgary, AB.
Golder Associates
December 2010
SPSS Inc. 2005. SPSS Version 14.0 for Windows. Somers, NY.
Stardom, R. 1989. Status Report on the Lynx (Lynx canadensis) in Canada.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, ON.
33 pp.
Stelfox, J.B. (Editor). 1993. Hoofed Mammals of Alberta. Lone Pine Publishing.
Stelfox, J.B. (Editor). 1995. Relationships Between Stand Age, Stand Structure and
Biodiversity in Aspen Mixedwood Forests in Alberta. Jointly Published by
Alberta Environmental Centre (AECV95-R1), Vegreville, AB and Canadian
Forest Service (Project No. 0001A), Edmonton, AB. 308 pp.
Stephen, W.J.D. 1979. Status Report on the Greater Sandhill Crane (Grus
canadensis tabida) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered
Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, ON.
Stevens, C.E. and C.A. Paszkowski. 2004. Using Reproductive Chorus-Ranks from
Call Surveys to Estimate Reproductive Activity of the Wood Frog (Rana
sylvatica). Journal of Herpetology. 38. 3. p. 404-410.
Stevens, C.A., C.A. Paszkowski and A.L. Foote. 2007. Beaver (Castor canadensis)
as a Surrogate Species for Conserving Anuran Amphibians on Boreal
Streams in Alberta, Canada. Biological Conservation. 134:1-13.
Strong, W.L. and K.R. Leggat. 1992. Ecoregions of Alberta. Publication No. T/245.
Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife, Land Information Services Division,
Resource Information Branch, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. xii + 59 pages.
Stuart-Smith, A.K., C.J.A. Bradshaw, S. Boutin, D.M. Hebert and A.B. Rippin.
1997. Woodland Caribou Relative to Landscape Patterns in Northeastern
Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management. 61:622-633.
Suncor (Suncor Energy Inc.). 1995. Burnt Lake Thermal Project. Application to
Energy Resources Conservation Board. Volume 2: Environmental Impact
Assessment.
Suncor. 1998. Project Millennium Application. Volumes 1, 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D.
Submitted to Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and Alberta Environment.
Calgary, AB. Submitted April 1998.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Suncor. 2000. Firebag In-Situ Oil Sands Project. Application for Conservation
and Reclamation Approval and Water Act Notification for the Utility
Corridor. May 2000. Submitted to Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and
Alberta Environment. Prepared by Suncor Energy Inc. and Golder
Associates Ltd. Calgary, AB.
Suncor. 2005. Voyageur Project Application and Environmental Impact

Assessment. Submitted to Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and Alberta
Environment. Volumes 1A, 1B, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Fort McMurray, AB.
Submitted March 2005.
Suncor. 2007. Voyageur South Project Application and Environmental Impact

Assessment. Volume 4. Submitted to Alberta Energy and Utilities Board
and Alberta Environment. July 2007. Fort McMurray, AB.
Sunshine (Sunshine Oil Sands Ltd.). 2010. Application for the Sunshine Oil Sands
Ltd. West Ells SAGD Project. Submitted to Alberta Energy and Utilities
Board and Alberta Environment, March 2010. Calgary, AB.
Syncrude (Syncrude Canada Ltd.). 1984. Biophysical Impact Assessment for the
New Facilities at the Syncrude Canada Ltd. Mildred Lake Plant. Syncrude
Canada
Systat Software Inc. 2004. SYSTAT 11.0. Chicago, IL.
Takats, D.L. and G.L. Holroyd 1997. Biology and conservation of owls of the
Northern Hemisphere: second international symposium, February 5-9, 1997,
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. United States Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service General Technical Report. p. 421–430.
Takats, D.L., C.M. Francis, G.L. Holroyd, J.R. Duncan, R.M. Mazur, R.J. Cannings,
W. Harris and D. Holt. 2001. Guidelines for Nocturnal Owl Monitoring in
North America. Beaverhill Bird Observatory and Bird Studies Canada.
Taylor, S.K., E.S. Williams, E.T. Thorne, K.W. Mills, D.I. Withers and A.C. Pier.
1999a. Causes of Mortality of the Wyoming Toad. Journal of Wildlife
Diseases 35: 49-57.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Taylor, S.K., E.S. Williams and K.W. Mills. 1999b. Experimental Exposure of
Canadian toads to Basidiobolus ranarum. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 35:
58-63.
Tietje, W.D. and R.L. Ruff. 1980. Denning Behaviour of Black Bears in the Boreal
Forest of Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management. 44(4):858–870.
Todd, A.W. 1978. Methodology Used for Alberta Land Inventory of Furbearers.
Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division. Edmonton, AB.
TrueNorth (TrueNorth Energy). 2001. Application for Approval of the Fort Hills
Oil Sands Project. Volume 5c: Environmental Baseline Study. Prepared by
AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. and Golder Associates Ltd.
URSUS and Komex (URSUS Ecosystem Management Ltd. and Komex

International Ltd.). 1997. Wildlife Field Surveys. Mobil Oil Canada Lease
36 Baseline Study. Prepared for Mobil Oil Canada. Calgary, AB. 29 pp. +
Appendices.
Veitch, A. 2001. An Unusual Record of a White-tailed Deer, Odocoileus

virginianus, in the Northwest Territories. The Canadian Field Naturalist.
115:172-175.
Vonhof, M.J. and D. Hobson. 2001. Survey of the Bats of Central and
Northwestern Alberta. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish
and Wildlife Service, Alberta Species At Risk Report No.4. Edmonton, AB.
33 pp.
Weaver, J.L., P.C. Paquet and L.F. Ruggiero. 1996. Resilience and conservation of
large carnivores in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology 10: 964-
976.
Weir, R.D. 2003. Status of the fisher in British Columbia. B.C. Min. Water, Land
and Air Prot. and B.C. Min. Sustainable Resour. Manage., Victoria, B.C.
Wildl. Bull. No. B-105.
Westworth and Associates. 1979. Review of Mammal Populations on Lease No. 17

and Vicinity. Prepared for Syncrude Canada Ltd. Professional Paper 1979–
2. 26 pp.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Westworth and Associates (Westworth and Associates Environmental Ltd.). 1990.

Environmentally Significant Areas of the Eastern Boreal Forest Region.
Prepared for Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife. Edmonton, AB.
Westworth and Associates. 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. Prepared for the Cumulative
Environmental Management Association (CEMA) Wildlife and Fish
Working Group (WFWG). Edmonton, AB. 304 pp.
Westworth, Brusnyk and Associates Ltd. 1996a. Wildlife Inventory of Oil Sands
Leases 12, 13 and 34. Prepared for Syncrude Canada Ltd. 50 pp.
Westworth, Brusnyk and Associates Ltd. 1996b. Impact Analysis Suncor Steepbank
Mine Environmental Wildlife Component. Prepared for Suncor Inc., Oil
Sands Group. Edmonton, AB.
Westworth, Brusnyk and Associates. 1996c. Abundance and Distribution of Moose

in the Suncor Study Area. Prepared for Suncor Inc., Oil Sands Group.
Edmonton, AB.
Westworth, D.A. 1980. Surveys of Moose Population in the Vicinity of the

Syncrude Development. Winter 1979-1980. Prepared for Syncrude Canada
Ltd. 13pp.
Westworth, D.A. and L.M. Brusnyk. 1982. Wildlife Resources of the Canstar
Leases: Terrestrial Furbearers. Prepared for Canstar Oil Sands Ltd.
Young, B.F. 1978. Potential Productivity of Black Bear Habitat of the AOSERP
Study Area. University of Calgary (ed.). Prepared for the Alberta Oil Sands
Environmental Research Program. Calgary, AB. 22 pp.
Young, D.A. and C.P. Bjornson. 1985 Wildlife Investigations in the Vicinity of the
Wolf Lake Development, May-October 1985. Prepared by Environmental
Management Associates for BP Resources Canada Limited.
Young, B.F. and R.L. Ruff. 1982. Population Dynamics and Movements of Black
Bears in East Central Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management. 46:845-
860.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Zar, J.H. 1999. Biostatistical Analysis, 4th Edition. Prentice-Hall Inc. Simon and
Schuster/A Viacom Company. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
9.2 INTERNET SOURCES
ACC (Alberta Caribou Committee). 2010. Available online at:

http://www.albertacariboucommittee.ca. Accessed October 19, 2010.
Altman, B. and R. Sallabanks. 2000. Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi),

The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of
Ornithology. Available online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/
502doi:10.2173/bna.502. Accessed March 23, 2010.
Alvo, R. and M. Robert. 1999. COSEWIC Status Report on the Yellow Rail
Coturnicops noveboracensis in Canada. Committee on the Status of
Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa. 62 pp. Available online at
http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr_yellow_rail_110
1_e.pdf. Accessed on October 8, 2010.
ASRD (Alberta Sustainable Resources Development). 2006. The General Status of

Alberta Wild Species 2005. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development,
Fish and Wildlife Service Division.
http://www.srd.alberta.ca/BioDiversityStewardship/SpeciesAtRisk/GeneralS
tatus/StatusOfAlbertaWildSpecies2005/Search.aspx. Accessed July 29,
2010.
ASRD (Alberta Sustainable Resources Development). 2010. Grizzly Bear (Ursus

arctos horribilis). Available online at:
http://www.srd.alberta.ca/BioDiversityStewardship/WildSpecies/Mammals/
Bears/GrizzlyBear.aspx. Accessed November 10, 2010.
Bat Conservation International. 2010. Available on-line at:

http://www.batcon.org/index.php/all-about-bats/species-profiles.html
Accessed March 30, 2010.
Bookhout, T.A. 1995. Yellow Rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis). In The Birds of

North America Online (A. Poole, ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca.
Available online at
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/139/articles/introduction. Accessed
October 8, 2010.
COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2009.

Canadian Species at Risk, January 2009. Canadian Wildlife Service,
Golder Associates
December 2010
Environment Canada. Ottawa, ON. 96 pp. Available online at:

http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct0/rpt/rpt_csar_e.pdf. Accessed October 1,
2010.
Fiera Biological Consulting. 2009. Environmentally Significant Areas. Prepared for

the Government of Alberta. Available Online at:
http://www.tpr.alberta.ca/parks/heritageinfocentre/environsigareas/default.as
px. Accessed October 15, 2010.
GOA (Government of Alberta). 2010. Resident Hunter Harvest. My Wild Alberta.

Available at:
http://www.mywildalberta.com/Hunting/GameSpecies/ResidentHuntersHar
vest.aspx. Access August 2010.
Hill, D.P. and L.K. Gould. 1997. Chestnut-collared Longspur (Calcarius ornatus),
The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of
Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online:
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/288 doi:10.2173/bna.288
MMP (Marsh Monitoring Program). 2009. Marsh Monitoring Program Participant's

Handbook for Surveying Marsh Birds. 2009 Edition. Published by Bird
Studies Canada in cooperation with Environment Canada and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. February 2009. 17 pages. Available on-
line at: http://www.bsc-eoc.org/mmpfrogs.html
Morse, D.H. and A.F. Poole. 2005. Black-throated Green Warbler (Dendroica
virens). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell
Laboratory of Ornithology; Retrieved from The Birds of North American
Online database: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/account/Black-
throated_Green_Warbler.
Olsen, B.T., S.J. Hannon and G.S. Court 2006. Short-term response of breeding
Barred Owls to forestry in a boreal mixedwood forest landscape. Avian
Conservation and Ecology-Écologie et conservation des oiseaux 1(3): 1.
[online] URL: http://www.ace-eco.org/vol1/iss3/art1/. Accessed on May 1,
2010.
PWRC (Patuxent Wildlife Research Center). 2005. Protocols and Strategies for
Monitoring North American Amphibians.
http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/naamp/index.cfm?fuseaction=app.protocol
RECONYX®. 2004. Silent Image: Professional Edition Fact Sheet.

http://www.RECONYX.com/docs/factsheet_recreational.pdf. Accessed on
October 18, 2005.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Roberts, W. 2007. Innovation Alberta interview with Wayne Roberts, Curator of the
University of Alberta Zoology Museum. Available online at:
http://www.innovationalberta.com/article.php?articleid=152. Accessed March
31, 2010.
Species at Risk Public Registry. 2010. http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca. Accessed

September 21, 2010.
9.3 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
Czetwertynski, S. (Ph.D. Candidate, University of Alberta). 2004. Personal

Communication with Paula Bentham (Golder Associates Ltd.). Initially
Contacted in November 2004.
Halfpenny, J. (Snow Tracking For Professionals Course Instructor). 2003. Personal

Communication with Paula Bentham (Golder Associates Ltd.). Contacted in
December 2003.
Powell, T. (Alberta Environment). 2010a. Personal Communication with Brock

Simons (Golder Associates Ltd. Initially Contacted in January 2010.
Powell, T. (Alberta Environment). 2010b. Personal Communication with Kyle

Knopff, Golder Associates Ltd. Contacted in August 2010.
Ramcharita, R. (Alberta Environment). 2001. Personal Communication with Corey

De La Mare (Golder Associates Ltd.). Initially Contacted in September
2001.
Roberts, W. (University of Alberta). 2003. Personal Communication with Corey De

La Mare, Golder Associates Ltd. Initially contacted on October 22, 2003.
Songhurst, J. (Alberta Environment). 2000. Personal Communication with Trina

Hoffarth (Golder Associates Ltd.). Initially Contacted on March 5, 2000.
Tuttle, S. (Suncor Energy Inc.). 2001. Personal Communication with Corey De La

Mare (Golder Associates Ltd.). Initially Contacted in September 2001.
Wu, Elise (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development). 2010. Email

communication with Bethany Beale (Golder) on April 28, 2010.
Golder Associates
December 2010
10 ABBREVIATIONS
C Temperature in degrees Celsius

% Percent
< Less than
> More than
± Plus or minus
AOSC Athabasca Oil Sands Corp.
ASRD Alberta Sustainable Resource Development
ATV All-terrain vehicle
bpd Barrels per day
Canadian Natural Canadian Natural Resources Limited
CEMA Cumulative Environmental Management Association
CI Confidence Interval
COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
dbh Diameter at breast height
DNP Dover North Plant
Dover OPCO Dover Operating Corp.
DSP Dover South Plant
e.g. For example
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
ESA Environmentally Significant Area
et al. Group of authors
FWMIS Fish and Wildlife Management Information System
GIS Geographic Information System
GLM General Linear Model
Golder Golder Associates Ltd.
GPS Global Positioning System
ha Hectare
hr Hour
HSD Honestly Significant Difference
i.e. That is
ISDA Initial Surface Development Area
kb Kilobyte
kHz Kilohertz
KIRs Key Indicator Resources
km Kilometre
Golder Associates
December 2010
km/h or km/hr Kilometres per hour

km2 Square kilometre
LSA Local Study Area
m Metre
masl Metres above sea level
pers. comm. Personal Communication
R Range
RFMA Registered Fur Management Areas
ROW Rights-of-way
RSA Regional Study Area
SAGD Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage
SARA Species at Risk Act
SEWG Sustainable Ecosystems Working Group of CEMA
Shell Shell Canada Limited
spp. Multiple Species
Suncor Suncor Energy Inc.
Total Total E&P Joslyn Ltd.
Tp Township
W4M West of the Fourth Meridian
WMU Wildlife Management Unit
Golder Associates
December 2010
11 GLOSSARY
Aeolian Sedimentary deposits arranged by wind, such as sand and other

loose substrates in dunes.
Anthropogenic Caused by human activity.
Biodiversity The variety of plant and animal life in a particular habitat (e.g., plant
community or a country). It includes all levels of organization, from
genes to landscapes, and the ecological processes through which
these levels are connected.
Bitumen A highly viscous, tarry, black hydrocarbon material having an API

gravity of about 9 (specific gravity about 1.0). It is a complex
mixture of organic compounds. Carbon accounts for 80 to 85% of
the elemental composition of bitumen, hydrogen 10%,
sulphur 5%, and nitrogen, oxygen and trace elements form the
remainder.
Bog Ombrotophic, acidic, peat-forming wetlands that receives its surface

moisture from precipitation. Characterized by a level, raised or
sloping peat surface with hollows and hummocks.
Boreal Forest The northern hemisphere, circumpolar, tundra forest type consisting
primarily of black spruce and white spruce with balsam fir, birch
and aspen.
Bryophyte
Non-vascular plants from the phylum Bryophyta. Species within
this phylum include mosses, liverworts and hornworts.
Canid Any animal of the family Canidae, a family of mammals including

dogs, jackals, wolves and foxes, typically having a bushy tail, erect
ears and a long muzzle: order Carnivora (carnivores).
Canopy An overhanging cover, shelter or shade. The tallest layer of

vegetation in an area.
Carnivore Any of an order of mammals that feed chiefly on flesh or other

animal matter rather than plants.
Closed Canopy Dense cover in the topmost vegetation layer in a community, usually
limiting the light available to the forest floor.
Coniferous Bearing cones or strobili (a cone-like cluster).
Golder Associates
December 2010
Cumulative An association of oil sands industry, other industry, regional

Environmental community representatives, regulatory agencies and other
Management Association stakeholders designed to develop systems to manage cumulative
(CEMA) effects associated with developments in the Oil Sands Region.
Cutblock Previously forested area that has been harvested for timber and is
presently regenerating at various stages of regrowth.
Deciduous Tree species that lose their leaves at the end of the growing season.
Diameter at Breast The diameter of a tree 1.37 m above the ground surface.
Height (dbh)
Diurnal Animals active during the day.
Echolocation High frequency sounds (25 to 120 kHz) produced by bats that are
beyond the range of human hearing (20 Hz to 25 kHz). These
sounds are produced with great intensity. Echoes resulting from
sound returning from objects in the bat’s environment provide
information to the bat.
Ecodistrict A broad subdivision of the landscape based on differences in

landscape pattern, topography and dominant soils.
Ecosite Ecological units that develop under similar environmental

influences (climate, moisture and nutrient regime). Ecosites are
groups of one or more ecosite phases that occur within the same
portion of the moisture/nutrient grid. Ecosite is a functional unit
defined by the moisture and nutrient regime. It is not tied to
specific landforms or plant communities, but is based on the
combined interaction of biophysical factors that together dictate the
availability of moisture and nutrients for plant growth.
Ecosite Phase A subdivision of the ecosite based on the dominant tree species in
the canopy. On some sites where the tree canopy is lacking, the
tallest structural vegetation layer determines the ecosite phase.
Ecosystem
An integrated and stable association of living and non-living
resources functioning within a defined physical location. A
community of organisms and its environment functioning as an
ecological unit. For the purposes of assessment, the ecosystem must
be defined according to a particular unit and scale.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Edaphic Referring to the soil. The influence of the soil on plant growth is
referred to as an edaphic factor.
Emergent Vegetation Plant species that have a part extending below the normal water
level. Such plants are adapted to periodic flooding and include
genera such as Carex, Scripus and Typha.
Environmental Impact A review of the effects that a proposed development will have on the
Assessment (EIA) local and regional environment.
Eskers
Long, narrow bodies of sand and gravel deposited by a subglacial
stream running between ice walls or in an ice tunnel, left behind
after melting of the ice of a retreating glacier.
Fen Sedge peat materials derived primarily from sedges with inclusions
of partially decayed stems of shrubs formed in a eutrophic
environment due to the close association of the material with
mineral rich waters. Minerotropic peat-forming wetlands that
receive surface moisture from precipitation and groundwater. Fens
are less acidic than bogs, deriving most of their water from
groundwater rich in calcium and magnesium.
Forb A broad-leaved herb, that is not a grass.
Geographic Information Computer software designed to develop, manage, analyze and

System (GIS) display spatially referenced data.
Glacial Flutes A landform created by the movement of a glacier around a boulder.

They are long ridges on the ground parallel to the movement.
Glaciofluvial Sediments or landforms produced by melt waters originating from

glaciers or ice sheets. Glaciofluvial deposits commonly contain
rounded cobbles arranged in bedded layers.
Glaciolacustrine Sediments that were deposited in lakes that formed at the edge of
glaciers when the glaciers receded. Glaciolacustrine sediments are
commonly laminar deposits of fine sand, silt and clay.
Global Positioning System A system of satellites, computers and receivers that is able to
(GPS) determine the latitude and longitude of a receiver on Earth by
calculating the time difference for signals from different satellites to
reach the receiver.
Glycoprotectant Blood antifreeze (in frogs).
Golder Associates
December 2010
Graminoid Grasses and grass-like plants such as sedges and rushes.
Guild A set of co-existing species that share a common resource.
Habitat The place or environment where a plant or animal naturally or

normally lives or occurs.
Habitat Fragmentation Occurs when extensive, continuous tracts of habitat are reduced by
habitat loss to dispersed and usually smaller patches of habitat.
Generally reduces the total amount of available habitat and reduces
remaining habitat into smaller, more isolated patches.
Hibernacula The shelter chosen by an animal for hibernation during winter.
Home Range The area within which an animal normally lives, and traverses as
part of its annual travel patterns.
Hummocky
A very complex sequence of slopes extending from somewhat
rounded depression or kettles or various sizes to irregular to conical
knolls or knobs. There is a general lack of concordance between
knolls and depressions.
Internal Lawn
Wet depressional area within bog or fen wetlands types that are
absent of trees and contain species adapted to wetter conditions than
the surrounding wooded habitat. In bogs, internal lawns contain wet
Sphagnum species and sedges and represent previous areas of
permafrost that have degraded in the past. In fens, internal lawns
contain wetter species of Sphagnum or brown moss.
Invasive Species A species that has moved into an ecosystem and reproduced so
successfully that it has displaced the original structure of the
community.
Invertebrates Any animal lacking a backbone, including all species not classified
as vertebrates.
Key Indicator Resources Environmental attributes or components identified as a result of a

(KIRs) social scoping exercise as having legal, scientific, cultural, economic
or aesthetic value.
Linear Disturbance
Cutlines, pipelines, rights-of-ways, and transmission lines (but not
roads).
Local Study Area (LSA) Defines the spatial extent directly or indirectly affected by the
project.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Lowland Areas
Areas with ground slopes of less than 0.5% and typically poorly
drained.
Mean Centroid value of a data population when viewing its probability

distribution function (or histogram) as a mass distribution.
Mesic A moderate soil moisture regime value whereby water is removed

somewhat slowly in relation to supply; neither wet nor dry.
Available soil water reflects climatic inputs.
Mixedwood A terrestrial forest type that is an assemblage of both deciduous and

coniferous tree species.
Moraine Sediment generally consisting of well compacted material that is

nonstratified and contains a heterogeneous mixture of particle sizes,
often in a mixture of sand, silt, and clay that has been transported
beneath, beside, on, within and in front of a glacier and not modified
by any intermediate agent.
Movement Corridor Travel way used by wildlife for daily, seasonal, annual or dispersal
movements from one area or habitat to another.
Muskeg A soil type comprised primarily of organic matter. Also known as

bog peat.
Oil Sands Region
The Oil Sands Region includes the Fort McMurray – Athabasca Oil
Sands Subregional Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), the Lakeland
Subregional IRP and the Cold Lake – Beaver River Subregional
IRP.
Old Growth Forest An ecosystem distinguished by old trees and related structural
attributes. Old growth encompasses the later stages of stand
development that typically differ from earlier stages in a variety of
characteristics which may include tree size, accumulations of large
dead woody material, number of canopy layers, species,
composition, and ecosystem function. Old growth forests are those
forested areas where the annual growth equals annual losses, or
where the mean annual increment of timber volume equals zero.
They can be defined as those stands that are self-regenerating (i.e.,
having a specific structure that is maintained).
Omnivorous Carnivore
A fish species with a diet that consists primarily of other fish, with
no particular selectivity for a specific prey item.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Orthophoto A digital image of an aerial photograph.
Patterned Fen Peatlands that display a distinctive pattern due to alterations

between open wet areas (flarks) and drier shrubby to wooded areas
(strings).
Peatland Areas where there is an accumulation of peat material at least 40 cm

thick. These are represented by bog and fen wetlands types.
Permafrost
Permanently frozen ground (subsoil). Permafrost areas are divided
into more northern areas in which permafrost is continuous, and
those more southern areas in which patches of permafrost alternate
with unfrozen ground.
pH
The degree of acidity (or alkalinity) of soil or solution. The pH
scale is generally presented from 1 (most acidic) to 14 (most
alkaline). A difference of one pH unit represents a ten-fold change
in hydrogen ion concentration.
Point Count A circular plot survey where observers spend a prescribed time
looking and listening for birds.
Raptor A carnivorous (meat-eating) bird; includes eagles, hawks, falcons

and owls.
Regional Study Area Defines the spatial extent related to the cumulative effects resulting
(RSA) from the project and other regional developments.
Relative Abundance The proportional representation of a species in a sample or a

community.
Riparian Refers to terrain, vegetation or simply a position next to or

associated with a stream, floodplain or standing waterbody.
Sedge Any plant of the genus Carex, perennial herbs, often growing in
dense tufts in marshy places. They have triangular jointless stems, a
spiked inflorescence and long grass-like leaves which are usually
rough on the margins and midrib. There are several hundred
species.
Seral Stage In an ecological succession, the series of biotic communities that

follow one another on the way to the stable stage, or climax
community.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Shannon-Wiener Index A diversity measure based on information theory, a measure of

species richness and evenness in the number of individuals per
species within a particular system. Greater values represent greater
diversity. The Shanon-Weiner Index is represented by:
∑
Snag
A naturally occurring, standing dead or dying tree often missing a
top or most of the smaller branches. It plays an important role in
providing habitat for a variety of forest-dwelling wildlife species as
well as epiphytic lichens.
Species Where ‘H’ is the index of species diversity, ‘S’ the number of
species, and ‘pi’ the proportion of the total sample of individuals
represented by the ‘i’ species.
A group of organisms that actually or potentially interbreed and are
reproductively isolated from all other such groups; a taxonomic
grouping of genetically and morphologically similar individuals; the
category below genus.
Species Abundance The number of individuals of a particular species within a biological

community (e.g., habitat).
Species Diversity A description of a biological community that includes both the

number of different species and their relative abundance. Provides
a measure of the variation in number of species in a region. This
variation depends partly on the variety of habitats and the variety of
resources within habitats and, in part, on the degree of specialization
to particular habitats and resources.
Species Richness The number of different species occupying a given area.
Stand Age The number of years since a forest has been affected by a stand-
replacing disturbance event (e.g., fire or logging) and has since been
regenerating.
Standard Deviation (Sd) A measure of the variability or spread of the measurements about
the mean. It is calculated as the positive square root of the variance.
Steam Assisted Gravity An in-situ oil sands recovery technique that involves the use of two
Drainage (SAGD) horizontal wells, one to inject steam and a second to produce the
bitumen.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Subhygric Soil moisture conditions where water is removed slowly enough to

keep the soil wet for a significant part of the growing season. There
is some temporary seepage and possible mottling below 20 cm.
Succession A series of dynamic changes by which one group of organisms

succeeds another through stages leading to a climax community.
Successional Stage A particular phase of the forest succession continuum with its own
characteristic of age, structure and composition of species. Stages
may include the following: pioneer, young seral, maturing seral, old
seral, young edaphic, mature edaphic, young climatic, mature
climatic and disclimax.
Swamp Land having soils that are saturated with water for at least part of
the year and which usually occur next to waterbodies or in areas in
association with fluctuating water levels such as along peatland
margins.
Terrestrial Vegetation Forested or non-forested areas of the landscape with non-saturated

and non-peat-forming soils. Excludes bogs, fens, swamps and
marshes.
Till
Sediments laid down by glacial ice.
Transect A method of sampling vegetation, along a path or fixed line.

Understorey
Trees or other vegetation in a forest that exist below the main
canopy level.
Ungulate Belonging to the former order Ungulata, now divided into the orders
Perissodactyla and Artiodactyla, and composed of the hoofed
mammals such as horses, cattle, deer, swine and elephants.
Upland Areas Areas that have typical ground slopes of 1 to 3% and are better-
drainage.
Veener Bog A bog occurring on gently sloping terrain underlain by generally

discontinuous permafrost. Although drainage is predominantly
below the surface, overland flow occurs in poorly defined
drainways during peak runoff.
Water Table
The shallowest saturated ground below ground level - technically,
that surface of a body of unconfined groundwater in which the
pressure is equal to atmospheric pressure.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Waterbody A general term that refers to ponds, bays, lakes, estuaries and
marine areas.
Watercourse A general term that refers to riverine systems such as creeks,

brooks, streams and rivers.
Watershed The area of land bounded by topographic features that drains water
to a larger waterbody such as a river, wetlands or lake. Watershed
can range in size from a few hectares to thousands of kilometres.
Wetlands Wetlands are land where the water table is at, near or above the
surface or which is saturated for a long enough period to promote
such features as wet-altered soils and water tolerant vegetation.
Wetlands include organic wetlands or “peatlands,” and mineral
wetlands or mineral soil areas that are influenced by excess water
but produce little or no peat.
Wildlife Under the Species at Risk Act, wildlife is defined as a species,

subspecies, variety or geographically or genetically distinct
population of animal, plant or other organism, other than a
bacterium or virus that is wild by nature and is native to Canada or
has extended its range into Canada without human intervention and
has been present in Canada for at least 50 years.
Golder Associates
ATTACHMENT A
COMMON NAMES, SCIENTIFIC NAMES AND STATUS OF SPECIES OBSERVED

Dover Commercial Project A-1 Common and Scientific Names
December 2010
Table A-1 Common Names, Scientific Names and Status of Wildlife Species
Observed in the Local Study Area
(a) (b)
Common Name Scientific Name National Status Provincial Status
Mammals
bat spp. n/a n/a n/a
beaver Castor canadensis - Secure
black bear Ursus americanus Not At Risk Secure
Canada lynx Lynx canadensis Not At Risk Sensitive
coyote Canis latrans - Secure
fisher/marten Martes spp. - -
fisher Martes pennanti - Sensitive
grey wolf Canis lupus - Secure
hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus - Sensitive
little brown bat Myotis lucifugus - Secure
marten Martes americana - Secure
moose Alces alces - Secure
northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis - May Be at Risk
red bat Lasiurus borealis - Sensitive
red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus - Secure
red fox Vulpes vulpes - Secure
river otter Lutra canadensis - Secure
silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans - Sensitive
snowshoe hare Lepus americanus - Secure
weasel spp. Mustela spp. - -
woodland caribou Rangifer tarandus Threatened At Risk
Amphibians/Reptiles
Canadian toad Bufo hemiophrys Not At Risk May Be at Risk
boreal chorus frog Pseudacris triseriata - Secure
western (boreal) toad Bufo boreas Special Concern Sensitive
wood frog Rana sylvatica - Secure
Birds
alder flycatcher Empidonax alnorum - Secure
American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus - Sensitive
American redstart Setophaga ruticilla - Secure
American robin Turdus migratorius - Secure
American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos - Sensitive
barred owl Strix varia - Sensitive
bay-breasted warbler Dendroica castanea - Sensitive
black-and-white warbler Mniotilta varia - Secure
black-capped chickadee Parus atricapillus - Secure
black-throated green warbler Dendrocia virens - Sensitive
black poll warbler Dendrocia striata - Secure
blue-headed vireo Vireo solitarius - Secure
boreal owl Aegolius funereus Not At Risk Secure
brown creeper Certhia Americana - Sensitive
Cape May warbler Dendrocia tigrina - Sensitive
cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum - Secure
chestnut-collared longspur Calcarius ornatus Threatened Secure
chipping sparrow Spizella passerina - Secure
clay-colored sparrow Spizella pallida - Secure
common loon Gavia immer Not At Risk Secure
common nighthawk Chordeiles minor Threatened Sensitive
Golder Associates
December 2010
Observed in the Local Study Area (continued)
(a) (b)
common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas - Sensitive
Connecticut warbler Oporornis agilis - Secure
dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis - Secure
eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus - Secure
fox sparrow Passerella iliaca - Secure
golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa - Secure
gray jay Perisoreus canadensis - Secure
great gray owl Strix nebulosa Not At Risk Sensitive
great horned owl Bubo virginianus - Secure
grouse spp. n/a n/a n/a
hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus - Secure
hermit thrush Catharus guttatus - Secure
least flycatcher Empidonax minimus - Sensitive
Le Conte’s sparrow Ammodramus leconteii - Secure
lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes - Secure
Lincoln's sparrow Melospiza lincolnii - Secure
magnolia warbler Dendroica magnolia - Secure
marsh wren Cistothous palustris - Secure
mourning warbler Oporornis philadelphia - Secure
northern waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis - Secure
olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi Threatened Secure
orange-crowned warbler Vermivora celata - Secure
ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus - Secure
palm warbler Dendroica palmarum - Secure
Philadelphia vireo Vireo philadelphicus - Secure
pine siskin Carduelis pinus - Secure
pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus - Sensitive
plover spp. n/a n/a n/a
raptor spp. n/a n/a n/a
red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis - Secure
red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus - Secure
red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus - Secure
rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus - Secure
ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula - Secure
ruffed grouse Bonasa umbellus - Secure
sandhill crane Grus canadensis Not At Risk Sensitive
Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya - Secure
song sparrow Melospiza melodia - Secure
sora Porzana carolina - Sensitive
Swainson's thrush Catharus ustulatus - Secure
swamp sparrow Melospiza georgiana - Secure
Tennessee warbler Vermivora peregrina - Secure
three-toed woodpecker Picoides dorsalis - Secure
tree swallow Iridoprocne bicolor - Secure
warbling vireo Vireo gilvus - Secure
western tanager Piranga ludoviciana - Sensitive
western wood pewee contopus sordidulus Secure
white-throated sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis - Secure
Golder Associates
December 2010
Observed in the Local Study Area (continued)
(a) (b)
white-winged crossbill Loxia leucoptera - Secure
Wilson’s snipe (common snipe) Gallinago gallinago - Secure
Wilson’s warbler Wilsonia pusilla - Secure
winter wren Troglodytes troglodytes - Secure
yellow rail Coturnicops noveboracensis Special Concern Undetermined
yellow warbler Dendrocia petechia - Secure
yellow-bellied flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris - Undetermined
yellow-bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius - Secure
yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata - Secure
(a)
COSEWIC (2009, internet site); Species at Risk Public Registry (2010, internet site).
(b)
- = Indicates species not currently considered to be at risk; however, official status has not been determined.
Note: Status definitions are presented in the Wildlife Baseline Report submitted on compact disc with this Application,
Section 7.2.
Golder Associates
ATTACHMENT B
POTENTIAL AND OBSERVED SPECIES OF CONCERN

Dover Commercial Project B-1 Species of Special Concern
December 2010
Table B-1 Potential and Observed Wildlife Species of Concern in and Around the Local Study Area
Provincial CEMA
National Status National Status Species Observed
Listing Ratified
Species Scientific Name (COSEWIC 2009, at Risk Public Registry During Field Habitat Requirements(a)
(ASRD 2006, Indicator
internet site) (2010, internet site) Surveys
internet site) (CEMA 2006)
Mammals
Chiroptera
northern southern end of range; mixed and
Myotis septentrionalis - - May Be at Risk - yes
long-eared bat coniferous forests; hibernate in caves
found throughout most of the country,
hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus - - Sensitive - yes typically roost in trees along forest
borders
prefer forested environments, forage in
a variety of habitats, mostly over land,
red bat Lasiurus borealis - - Sensitive - yes along the edges of pastures, crop lands
or other openings dotted with large
deciduous trees
in forested areas of America, most
closely associated with coniferous or
silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans - - Sensitive - yes
mixed coniferous and deciduous forest
types, especially in areas of old growth
Castoridae
requires water; sloughs, rivers, creeks
beaver Castor canadensis - - Secure - yes
and lakes with trees within easy access
Cricetidae
muskrat Ondatra zibethicus - - Secure - yes sloughs, lakes, marshes, streams
Carnivora
black bear Ursus americanus - - Secure yes yes coniferous and mixed forests
fisher Martes pennanti - - Sensitive yes yes dense coniferous forest
wolverine Gulo gulo Special Concern No Schedule; No Status May Be at Risk - no dense forests
Canada lynx Lynx canadensis Not At Risk - Sensitive - yes coniferous and mixedwood forest
Artiodactyla
mixedwood, around edges of lakes,
moose Alces alces - - Secure yes yes
bogs and streams
woodland black spruce bogs and fens, upland
Rangifer tarandus Threatened Schedule 1: Threatened At Risk yes yes
caribou jack pine forest
wood bison Bos bison athabascae Threatened Schedule 1: Threatened At Risk - no boreal prairies
Amphibians and Reptiles
Anura
Canadian toad hemiophrys Not At Risk - May Be at Risk - yes margins of ponds, lakes and potholes
northern leopard Schedule 1: Special permanent ponds with emergent
Rana pipiens Special Concern At Risk - no
frog Concern vegetation (cattails, bulrushes)
ponds, streams or lakes; breeding
western (boreal) Schedule 1: Special ponds tend to be shallow with cool
Bufo boreas Special Concern Sensitive - yes
toad Concern water (less than 10ºC) and sandy
bottoms
red-sided garter marshy areas; in winter, hibernates in
Thamnophis sirtalis - - Sensitive - no
snake crevices and caves
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table B-1 Potential and Observed Wildlife Species of Concern in and Around the Local Study Area (continued)
Provincial CEMA
Listing Ratified
Birds
Podicipediformes
pond, wetlands or prairie slough with
pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps - - Sensitive - no shoreline or islands dense with
emergent growth
open and forested areas, preferring
horned grebe Podiceps auritus Special Concern No Schedule: No Status Sensitive - no ponds, sloughs and lakes with
extensive marshy vegetation
large lakes with large amounts of
western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis - - Sensitive - no
emergent and floating vegetation
Pelecaniformes
shallow, turbid lake remote from human
activity with extensive shallow waters
American white
Pelecanus erythrorhynchos - - Sensitive - yes near shore and good forage and non-
pelican
sport fish populations (e.g., suckers,
sticklebacks)
Ciconiiformes
marshes, swamps, moist meadows,
wet alder or willow thickets;
American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus - - Sensitive - yes occasionally in drier meadows, but
always in areas with dense growth of
vegetation
areas with shallow, open water,
great blue heron Ardea herodias - - Sensitive - no
swamps and mudflats
swamps, streams, rivers, ponds, lakes
black-crowned
Nycticorax nycticorax - - Sensitive - no and areas with dense emergent
night heron
vegetation
Anseriformes
small to medium size shallow lakes with
trumpeter swan Cygnus buccinator Not At Risk - At Risk - no well-developed emergent and sub-
emergent plant communities
near ponds, lakes, oxbows and
sluggish streams in treeless or open
white-winged
Melanitta fusca - - Sensitive - no country, with dense and low ground
scoter
cover associated; undisturbed islands
in deep water lakes
Anatiformes
American green-
Anas crecca - - Sensitive - no wetlands, beaver ponds, lakes
winged teal
lesser scaup Aythya affinis - Sensitive – no wetlands, beaver ponds, lakes
northern pintail Anas acuta - - Sensitive - no wetlands, beaver ponds, lakes
Golder Associates
December 2010
Provincial CEMA
Listing Ratified
Falconiformes
permanent lakes and rivers, where
osprey Pandion haliaetus - - Sensitive - no
there is an adequate supply of fish
proximity of a large body of water,
usually an inland lake or river; breeding
areas must have suitable tall trees near
bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Not At Risk - Sensitive - no
shore for nesting and roosting, good
fish populations and relatively little
human disturbance
open country, including marshes,
northern harrier Circus cyaneus Not At Risk - Sensitive - no
meadows and cultivated fields
forested habitats, usually in mature
northern
Accipiter gentilis Not At Risk - Sensitive - no forests that are dense; sometimes in
goshawk
areas interspersed with clearings
broad-winged in woodlands, generally near forest
Buteo platypterus - - Sensitive - no
hawk edge at clearings and wet areas
rocky outcrops, sparsely wooded
golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Not At Risk - Sensitive - no slopes and grassland habitats with
coulees, steep river banks and canyons
cliffs near water for nesting and open
peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Non-Active Schedule 1: Threatened At Risk - no
fields, swamps and marshes for hunting
Galliformes
aspen-dominated and mixedwood
forests; small openings in a deciduous
ruffed grouse Bonasa umbellus - - Secure - yes
forest are preferred; heavy understorey
needed for drumming sites
sharp-tailed openings created by fire and humans,
Tympanuchus phasianellus - - Sensitive - no
grouse muskegs and bogs
Gruiformes
yellow rail Coturnicops Noveboracensis Special Concern Undetermined Undetermined - yes graminoid marshes and fens
sora Porzana caroline - - Sensitive - yes wetlands and marshes
marshes, bogs adjacent to ponds and
sandhill crane Grus canadensis Not At Risk - Sensitive - yes large marshes with some open water
and tall grasses and rushes
whooping crane Grus americana Endangered Schedule 1: endangered At Risk - no large, relatively open, marshy areas
Golder Associates
December 2010
Provincial CEMA
Listing Ratified
Charadriiformes
open, grassy uplands, wet meadows,
upland
Bartramia longicauda - - Sensitive - no old fields with minimal tree or shrub
sandpiper
growth
Caspian tern Sterna caspia - - Sensitive - no large lakes rich with small fish
shallow lakes, marshes, sloughs, ponds
and wet meadows, where there are
black tern Chlidonias niger - - Sensitive - no
extensive shallows and moderate
amounts of emergent vegetation
cattail marshes and back waters; small
Forster’s tern Sterna forsteri Data Deficient - Sensitive - no lakes with floating or emergent
vegetation
Strigiformes
mixedwood forests with large
deciduous trees, particularly along
lakeshores and stream valleys;
barred owl Strix varia - - Sensitive - yes
breeding habitat must have densely
foliaged trees for roosting and large
trees with suitable cavities for nesting
coniferous, deciduous and mixedwood
areas, usually near water sources such
great gray owl Strix nebulosa Not At Risk - Sensitive - yes
as muskegs, marshes and wet
meadows
open country, including grassland,
Schedule 3: Special grassy or brushy meadows, marshland,
short-eared owl Asio flammeus Special Concern May Be at Risk - no
Concern pastures and previously forested areas
that have been cleared
northern saw- coniferous and mixed forests and treed
Aegolius acadicus - - Secure - no
whet owl swamps and bogs
boreal owl Aegolius funereus Not At Risk - Secure - yes coniferous and mixedwood forests
Caprimulgiformes
open or semi-open habitats in a variety
common of areas; forest clearings, burnt-over
Chordeiles minor Threatened Schedule 1: Threatened Sensitive - yes
nighthawk areas, gravel pits, barren rock and
beaches
Piciformes
dense mixed or coniferous forests,
black-backed
Picoides arcticus - - Sensitive - no often in openings such as bogs,
woodpecker
swamps and lakeshores
older, mature dense-canopied forest,
particularly mixed and deciduous
pileated
Drycopus pileatus - - Sensitive - yes woods with large dead and dying trees
woodpecker
for nesting and downed woody material
for feeding
Golder Associates
December 2010
Provincial CEMA
Listing Ratified
Passeriformes
extensive stands of spruce, also mixed
bay-breasted
Dendroica castanea - - Sensitive - yes stands of spruce, jack pine and
warbler
tamarack
mature coniferous or mixedwood forest
blackburnian
Dendroica fusca - - Sensitive - no containing coniferous trees (white
warbler
spruce)
black-throated mature coniferous or mixedwood forest
Dendroica virens - - Sensitive - yes
green warbler with large stands of white spruce
mature mixedwood and coniferous
brown creeper Certhia americana - - Sensitive - yes
forests
thick stands of willow and alder along
Canada warbler Wilsonia canadensis Threatened Schedule 1: Threatened Sensitive - no streams and dense shrubs and bushes
in swamps near the forest edge
Cape May dense mature white spruce stands of
Dendroica tigrina - - Sensitive - yes
warbler coniferous and mixedwood forests
common marshes, streamside thickets, wet
Geothlypis trichas - - Sensitive - yes
yellowthroat meadows and other wetlands
eastern phoebe Sayornis phoebe - - Sensitive - yes woodland and edge habitats near water
great-crested deciduous and mixedwood forests near
Myiarchus crinitus - - Sensitive - no
flycatcher clearings
an interior forest species that breeds in
least flycatcher Empidonax minimus - - Sensitive - yes semi-open, second-growth, and mature
deciduous and mixedwood forests
coniferous forest and often in open
olive-sided
Contopus cooperi Threatened Schedule 1: Threatened Secure - yes habitat of muskegs, bogs and swamps
flycatcher
dominated by spruce and tamarack
Schedule 1: Special beaver ponds, roadsides, landfills, wet
rusty blackbird Euphagus carolinus Special Concern Sensitive - no
Concern meadows and shoreline shrubs
sedge wren Cistothorus plantensis - - Sensitive - no sedge meadows and grassy fields
open coniferous and mixedwood
western tanager Piranga ludoviciana - - Sensitive - yes
forests
Golder Associates
December 2010
Provincial CEMA
Listing Ratified
Bird Communities of Concern
old growth bird
n/a n/a - n/a yes n/a -
community
ducks and
n/a n/a - n/a - n/a -
geese
mixedwood
forest bird n/a n/a - n/a - n/a -
community
(a)
Source: Canadian Natural (2002); Ehrlich et al. (1988); Godfrey (1986); Russell and Bauer (2000); Semenchuk (1992); Smith (1993).
- = Refers to no assessment for that species.
Golder Associates
ATTACHMENT C
INCIDENTAL WILDLIFE SIGHTINGS

Dover Commercial Project C-1 Incidental Wildlife Sightings
December 2010
Table C-1 Incidental Wildlife Sightings in and Around the Local Study Area
Observations Alberta Federal
Species (a) (b) (c) Habitat
Visual Audio Other Total Status Status
Birds
bittern - American - 3 - 3 Sensitive - Sh, BTNN, DIS
crane - sandhill 4 - 2 6 Sensitive Not At Risk CC, FONS, FTNI, BTNN
duck - species unknown - 1 - 1 n/a n/a FONG
grouse - ruffed 1 4 - 5 Secure - BTNN, d1, FONG
grouse – sharp tailed 1 - - 1 Sensitive n/a BTNN
grouse - species unknown - - 1 1 n/a n/a c1
jay - gray - 4 - 4 Secure - BTNN
loon - common - 5 - 5 Secure Not At Risk BTNN, LA
nighthawk - common 1 9 - 10 Sensitive Threatened d2, FONS, LA, STNN
owl - barred - 2 - 2 Sensitive - d3, d1
owl - great gray 3 - - 3 Sensitive Not At Risk FONS, FTNN, SONS
owl - great horned 1 - - 1 Secure Not At Risk d2
owl - species unknown - 1 - 1 n/a n/a d3
plover – species unknown 1 - - 1 n/a n/a MONG
rail - sora - 2 - 2 Sensitive - Sh, FONS
raptor - species unknown 2 3 - 5 n/a n/a b3, c1, d2
sapsucker - yellow bellied 1 - - 1 Secure Not At Risk b1
snipe - Wilson’s 6 4 - 10 Secure - FONG, FONS, STNN, FTNN
sparrow - Le Conte's - 2 - 2 Secure - FONS
sparrow - white-throated - 1 - 1 Secure Not At Risk h1
thrush - hermit - 3 - 3 Secure Not At Risk d2, h1
thrush - Swainson's - 4 - 4 Secure Not At Risk STNN
warbler - Tennessee - 6 - 6 Secure - STNN
warbler - yellow-rumped - 4 - 4 Secure Not At Risk BTNN, c1
woodpecker - pileated 1 - 2 3 Sensitive Not At Risk d3, f3
woodpecker - three-toed - 1 - 1 Secure -
wren - marsh - 1 - 1 Secure - FONS
yellowlegs - lesser 2 - - 2 Secure - FONG, FONS
Mammals
bat – species unknown 5 3 - 8 n/a n/a b3, BTNN, d2, FTNN
bear - black 9 - 8 17 Secure Not At Risk c1, CC, e2, g1, SH, FTNN
beaver - 4 - 4 Secure - MONG, WONN
Golder Associates
Dover Commercial Project C-2 Incidental Wildlife Sightings
December 2010
Table C-1 Incidental Wildlife Sightings In and Around the Local Study Area (continued)
Observations Alberta Federal
Species (a) (b) (c) Habitat
Visual Audio Other Total Status Status
caribou - woodland 12 - 45 57 At Risk Threatened BONS, BTNN, FONG, FONS, FTNN, WS, g1
coyote 1 - - 1 Secure - BUu
fox - red - - 1 1 Secure - CC
hare - snowshoe 10 - 42 52 Secure - BTNN, c1, d1, d2, f3, FTNN, h1, RD
fisher/marten 1 - - 1 n/a n/a BTNN
lynx - Canada 2 - - 2 Sensitive Not At Risk DIS
b1, b3, BTNN, BTXC, BTXN, BU, CC, d1, d2, h1, DIS,
moose 17 - 34 51 Secure -
FONG, FONS, FTNI, FTNN, SONS, WONN, RD, SH
otter - river 1 - - 1 Secure - WONN
squirrel - red - 31 2 33 Secure - c1, FTNN, BTXN, d3, d2, FONS, b3, d3, a1, b4, h1, FONS
wolf - grey 4 - 6 10 Secure Not At Risk c1, CC, RD, WONN
Amphibians
frog - boreal chorus - 62 - 62 Secure - FTNN, MONG
frog - wood 2 11 - 13 Secure - FONG, g1
Total 87 171 106 364 n/a n/a n/a
(a)
“Other” refers to sign that includes (but is not restricted to) tracks, scat, markings, lodges, dams, feeding activity, bedding and nests, kill sites.
(b)
(c)
COSEWIC (2009, internet site); Species at Risk Public Registry (2010, internet site).
- = Refers to no assessment for that species or no habitat association for that observation.
Golder Associates
ATTACHMENT D
WINTER TRACK COUNT RESULTS

Dover Commercial Project D-1 Winter Track Count Results
December 2010
Table D-1 Number of Tracks per Kilometre-day Observed for Each Wildlife Species by Ecosite Phase/Wetlands Type in and Around the Local Study Area
Track Days Species Tracks per Kilometre per Day Total Tracks per
Vegetation Types
[km] CARI FIMA FISH GROU LYNX MART MICE MOOS RESQ SNHA WESP WOLF Vegetation Type
Ecosite Phases
a1 lichen jack pine 9.65 0.00 0.10 0.00 3.63 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.73 (15.75) 0.73 0.00 203
b1 blueberry jackpine - aspen 19.90 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.70 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 2.66 67.99 0.05 0.05 1,428
b2 blueberry aspen-white birch 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 88.89 0.00 0.00 20
b3 blueberry aspen - white spruce 17.56 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.06 3.13 69.75 0.40 0.23 1,306
b4 blueberry white spruce-jack pine 7.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.06 47.37 0.13 0.40 372
c1 Labrador tea mesic jack pine - black spruce 35.49 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.59 0.00 0.00 3.66 46.71 0.06 0.08 1,854
d1 low-bush cranberry aspen 3.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 1.05 0.00 1.57 0.00 0.26 45.92 0.00 0.00 187
d2 low-bush cranberry aspen - white spruce 19.13 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.99 0.16 0.00 0.73 0.05 2.30 76.52 0.16 0.00 1,557
d3 low-bush cranberry - white spruce 8.73 0.00 0.46 0.00 2.52 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 4.35 (29.21) 0.11 0.00 323
e1 dogwood balsam poplar-aspen 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 349.09 0.00 0.00 48
e2 dogwood balsam poplar-white spruce 1.04 0.00 4.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.92 0.00 0.00 88.25 0.00 0.00 99
e3 dogwood white spruce 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.75 0.00 4.30 107.53 0.00 0.00 57
g1 Labrador tea - subhygric black spruce - jack pine 51.54 0.00 0.97 0.10 0.25 0.17 0.06 0.04 0.02 2.37 50.64 0.06 0.00 2,818
h1 Labrador tea/horsetail white spruce-black spruce 20.76 0.00 1.20 0.05 0.19 0.10 0.24 0.05 0.00 4.82 62.38 0.67 0.00 1,447
Wetlands Types
BONS shrubby bog 43.72 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.41 0.87 0.11 0.00 0.02 (0.23) 43.20 0.05 0.02 1,989
BTNN wooded bog 193.82 0.04 0.43 0.00 0.24 0.20 0.07 0.03 0.07 (1.02) (32.69) 0.26 0.01 6,794
FONG graminoid fen 1.30 0.00 1.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 (1.54) 0.00 0.00 6
FONS shrubby fen 25.96 0.00 0.27 0.00 1.16 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.35 (0.08) (24.08) 0.15 0.00 678
FTNN wooded fen 91.84 0.12 (0.14) 0.00 0.20 0.09 0.03 0.00 0.20 (0.73) 53.42 0.15 0.00 5,058
SONS shrubby swamp 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 286.64 0.00 0.00 177
STNN wooded swamp 3.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 3.29 0.00 5.59 175.72 1.32 0.00 566
Other Types
BU burn 5.15 0.00 1.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (8.94) 0.39 0.00 54
dis-l disturbed - linear 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.12 16.16 0.00 0.00 8
dis-nl disturbed - non-linear 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 0.00 0
(a)
Overall tracks per species 563.08 0.16 13.01 0.15 11.38 10.35 2.79 18.72 0.77 39.41 1,788.39 4.69 0.79 27,049
(a)
The values in this row reflect the sum of the absolute track counts per species divided by the total track days. The values do not reflect the sum of the values shown in each column.
Notes: CARI = woodland caribou, FIMA = fisher/marten, FISH = fisher, GROU = grouse, LYNX = Canada lynx, MART = Marten, MICE = mice, MOOS = moose, RESQ = red squirrel, SNHA = snowshoe hare, WESP = weasel species, WOLF = wolf.
Golder Associates
Dover Commercial Project D-2 Winter Track Count Results
December 2010
Table D-2 Number of Tracks per Kilometre-day Observed for Each Wildlife Species by Ecosite Phase/Wetlands Type in the Regional Study Area
Track Days Species Tracks per Kilometre per Day Total Tracks per
Vegetation Types
[km] BEAV CARI COYO DESP ERMI FIMA FISH GROU LTWE LYNX MART MICE MINK MOOS REFO RESQ RIOT SNHA WESP WOLF WOLV WTDE Vegetation Type
Ecosite Phases
a1 lichen jack pine 16.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.41 0.00 2.07 0.00 0.06 1.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.00 9.01 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 246
b1 blueberry jackpine - aspen 45.80 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.09 0.00 1.11 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.04 0.76 0.20 0.00 0.90 0.00 2.10 0.00 31.49 0.41 0.09 0.00 0.00 1,742
b2 blueberry aspen(white birch) 3.84 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.78 0.00 1.30 0.00 1.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.04 0.00 5.47 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 55
b3 blueberry aspen - white spruce 47.46 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.25 0.89 0.00 1.14 0.00 0.36 0.02 0.34 0.00 0.04 0.00 2.49 0.00 39.47 0.70 0.13 0.00 0.02 2,178
b4 blueberry white spruce-jack pine 17.01 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.06 0.06 2.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.12 0.24 0.12 0.00 0.41 0.00 1.35 0.00 23.22 0.41 0.35 0.00 0.00 498
c1 Labrador tea mesic jack pine - black spruce 43.24 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.72 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.21 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.63 0.00 38.74 0.19 0.07 0.00 0.00 1,917
c2 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 86.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13
d1 low-bush cranberry aspen 55.42 0.02 0.00 0.14 0.69 0.02 0.96 0.22 0.92 0.32 1.01 0.27 0.31 0.04 0.83 0.00 0.65 0.00 36.81 1.25 0.05 0.02 0.13 2,474
d2 low-bush cranberry aspen - white spruce 420.01 0.00 (0.00) 0.44 0.45 0.29 1.04 0.43 3.75 0.10 0.11 0.33 0.47 0.00 0.34 0.02 1.62 0.00 10.93 0.51 0.13 0.11 0.07 8,882
d3 low-bush cranberry - white spruce 43.94 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.41 0.18 0.77 0.11 1.16 0.14 0.14 0.39 0.57 0.00 0.48 0.05 3.25 0.00 17.55 0.77 0.48 0.02 0.00 1,176
e1 dogwood balsam poplar-aspen 16.21 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 1.36 1.30 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.06 0.00 0.80 0.00 1.30 0.00 4.07 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 175
e2 dogwood balsam poplar-white spruce 21.71 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.14 0.41 3.41 0.37 1.38 0.00 0.00 0.37 1.29 0.00 0.32 0.00 1.70 0.05 8.52 1.93 0.14 0.00 0.00 456
e3 dogwood white spruce 26.16 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.65 1.15 2.33 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.11 0.34 0.46 0.11 0.23 0.00 7.95 0.00 24.58 1.19 0.04 0.00 0.00 1,053
f1 horsetail balsam poplar-aspen 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4
f2 horsetail balsam poplar-white spruce 6.02 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.17 0.00 1.50 0.00 1.50 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33
f3 horsetail white spruce 1.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.47 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.60 3.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 12
g1 Labrador tea - subhygric black spruce - jack pine 98.19 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.41 0.16 0.97 0.05 0.25 0.00 0.22 0.06 0.14 0.00 0.04 0.00 2.41 0.00 46.96 0.84 0.02 0.01 0.00 5,186
h1 Labrador tea/horsetail white spruce-black spruce 45.97 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.28 0.46 1.44 0.11 0.98 0.00 0.04 0.15 0.70 0.00 0.39 0.00 4.18 0.00 41.78 1.57 0.04 0.00 0.00 2,410
h2 2.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.43 0.76 4.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 41
Wetlands Types
BFNN forested bog 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 0.00 32.32 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 21
BONS shrubby bog 43.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.87 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.23 0.00 43.20 (0.05) 0.02 0.00 0.00 1,989
BTNN wooded bog 375.03 0.00 0.02 (0.14) 0.15 0.15 (0.60) 0.00 32.86 0.02 0.20 0.16 0.09 0.00 (0.08) 0.01 0.85 0.01 2.96E+06 0.72 0.02 0.04 0.00 1.11E+09
FFNN forested fen 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1
FONG graminoid fen 11.07 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.81 0.18 1.63 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 1.54 0.00 1.26 0.09 0.00 0.00 3.61 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 130
FONS shrubby fen 84.86 0.06 0.00 0.09 0.14 0.01 (0.48) 0.01 0.68 0.00 0.19 0.08 0.20 0.00 0.58 0.02 0.05 0.01 24.10 0.92 0.02 0.00 0.00 2,347
FOPN patterned fe 18.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12
FTNI wooded fen (internal lawns present) 6.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.32 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20
FTNN wooded fen 354.34 0.00 0.04 0.18 0.21 0.34 1.39 0.31 0.21 0.02 0.10 0.35 0.20 0.00 0.23 0.03 0.48 0.01 68.66 0.76 0.03 0.01 0.00 26,072
MONG graminoid marsh 10.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.29 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 1.64 0.19 0.00 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 55
MONS shrubby marsh 5.30 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.00 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 24
SONS shrubby swamp 87.52 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.06 0.74 2.33 0.27 2.18 0.06 0.03 1.66 0.51 0.23 1.28 0.05 0.13 0.14 6.99 1.60 0.05 0.01 0.00 1,614
STNN wooded swamp 21.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.05 1.67 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.52 1.19 1.14 0.05 1.24 0.00 0.86 0.00 40.82 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,035
Other Types
BU burn 22.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 1.31 0.00 0.09 0.00 502.01 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 139
dis-l disturbed-linear 59.25 0.00 0.00 58.71 4.70 3.88 (6.75) 0.00 2.26 0.00 0.29 4.02 1.98 0.00 3.56 3.34 0.12 0.00 161.32 204.38 2.29 0.00 0.00 633
dis-nl disturbed-non-linear 51.42 0.00 0.00 7.87 9.63 5.29 15.92 1.15 1.24 0.04 0.04 0.22 6.70 0.00 3.60 0.41 0.63 0.00 3.30 5.76 2.43 0.04 0.04 380
ice ice 16.74 0.00 0.00 30.04 5.20 8.25 10.83 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.29 2.63 0.29 0.72 0.28 0.10 0.00 2.73 4.08 1.80 2.40 2.45 0.00 139
meadow meadow 0.39 0.00 0.00 2.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1
riparian riparian 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.72 18.88 0.00 0.00 26.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9
shrub shrublands 5.15 0.00 0.00 2.30 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.85 0.00 0.46 0.23 8.79 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 55
Overall tracks per species(a) 2,086.74 0.08 0.06 107.52 43.42 43.34 75.09 5.08 85.10 0.78 5.25 19.25 22.85 1.15 29.02 4.11 45.88 3.63 2,964,075.87 246.18 8.81 2.72 0.26 1,111,196,981
(a)
The values in this row reflect the sum of the absolute track counts per species divided by the total track days. The values do not reflect the sum of the values shown in each column.
Notes: BEAV = beaver, CARI = woodland caribou, COYO = coyote, DESP = deer species, ERMI = ermine, FIMA = fisher/marten, GROU = grouse, LTWE = least weasel, LYNX = Canada lynx, MART = marten, MICE = mice, MINK = mink, MOOS = moose, REFO = red fox,, RESQ = red
squirrel, SNHA = snowshoe hare, WESP = weasel species, WOLF = wolf, WOLV = wolverine, WTDE = white-tailed deer.
Golder Associates
ATTACHMENT E
HISTORIC WILDLIFE SURVEY RESULTS IN THE REGION

Dover Commercial Project E-i Historic Wildlife Survey Results
December 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
LIST OF TABLES
Table E-1 Moose Aerial Survey Results Within the Region .....................................................2
Table E-2 Moose Productivity in the Region ............................................................................5
Table E-3 Moose Track Count Survey Results Within the Region...........................................6
Table E-4 Deer Aerial Survey Results Within the Region ........................................................9
Table E-5 Deer Track Count Survey Results Within the Region............................................12
Table E-6 Caribou Aerial Survey Results Within the Region .................................................15
Table E-7 Caribou Track Count Survey Results Within the Region .......................................17
Table E-8 Wolf Survey Results Within the Region .................................................................19
Table E-9 Coyote Survey Results Within the Region .............................................................22
Table E-10 Red Fox Survey Results Within the Region ..........................................................25
Table E-11 Canada Lynx Survey Results Within the Region ...................................................28
Table E-12 Black Bear Survey Results Within the Region.......................................................31
Table E-13 Wolverine Survey Results Within the Region ........................................................33
Table E-14 Fisher and Marten Survey Results Within the Region ...........................................35
Table E-15 Weasel Survey Results Within the Region ............................................................40
Table E-16 Beaver Survey Results Within the Region .............................................................43
Table E-17 Muskrat Survey Results Within the Region ...........................................................46
Table E-18 River Otter Track Survey Results Within the Region.............................................48
Table E-19 Mink Track Survey Results Within the Region ......................................................51
Table E-20 Snowshoe Hare Survey Results Within the Region ..............................................54
Table E-21 Red Squirrel Survey Results Within the Region ....................................................57
Table E-22 Bat Survey Results Within the Boreal Mixedwood Forests of Alberta ...................60
Table E-23 Small Mammal Survey Results Within the Region ................................................64
Table E-24 Owl Survey Results Within the Region ..................................................................67
Table E-25 Raptor Survey Results Within the Region .............................................................72
Table E-26 Grouse Survey Results Within the Region ............................................................76
Table E-27 Breeding Bird Survey Results Within the Region ..................................................78
Table E-28 Marsh Bird Survey Results Within the Region.......................................................82
Table E-29 Amphibian Survey Results Within the Region .......................................................84
Golder Associates
Dover Commercial Project E-1 Historic Wildlife Survey Results
December 2010
1 INTRODUCTION
Details on results of historic wildlife surveys in the region are provided in

Tables E-1 to E-29.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-1 Moose Aerial Survey Results Within the Region

Results
2
Year Project [Individuals/km unless Habitat Reference
otherwise noted]
Gunderson and Rippin (1981), cited in BP
1969 to 1985 Alberta Environment 0.21 to 0.54 n/a
Resources et al. (1985)
1973 Alberta Environment 0.50 n/a Bibaud and Archer (1973)
preferred tall shrub, deciduous and avoided
1975 to 1976 Syncrude Lease 17 0.23 mixedwood in early winter; preferred tall shrub Penner (1976)
and avoided coniferous in late winter
0.03 in muskeg
(a)
1977 AOSERP 0.23 in aspen n/a Cook and Jacobsen (1978)
0.27 in river bottom
0.26 in March
Hauge and Keith (1981), as reported in
1977 to 1978 AOSERP 0.28 in December n/a
Conor Pacific (1998)
0.19 in February
1978 Syncrude 0.10 n/a Hauge and Keith (1981)
1978 to 1979 Esso 0.14 to 0.18 n/a Esso (1979)
Gunderson and Rippin (1981), cited in BP
1978 to 1981 Alberta Environment 0.25 to 0.34 n/a
Resources (1985)
December most in mixedwood, black spruce-
0.13 in December
1979 to 1980 Syncrude muskeg and shrub Westworth (1980)
0.23 in February
February most in deciduous and mixedwood
1980 Canstar Project 80 0.10 in December most in riparian shrub and black spruce-muskeg Skinner and Westworth (1981)
1981 Dome Petroleum Ltd. 0.17 n/a Roe (1984), cited in Suncor (1995)
most in mixedwood, aspen and willow wetlands
0.33 in early winter in early winter
1981 to 1982 Canstar Lease Westworth and Brusnyk (1982)
0.32 in late winter most in willow wetlands, mixedwood, black
spruce and aspen in late winter
Green (1980), as reported in Conor Pacific
1983 AOSTRA 0.18 in February n/a
(1998)
1985 Alberta Environment 0.52 n/a Penner and Ealey, cited in Suncor (1995)
(b) 0.11 in early winter
1986 OSLO n/a Salter et al. (1986)
0.07 in late winter
1991 Esso Resources Ltd. 0.14 n/a Brusnyk et al. (1991), cited in Esso (1997)
AENV, Fish and Wildlife Division, cited in
1992 to 1993 Alberta Environment 0.10 n/a
Esso (1997)
1995 Solv-Ex 0.01 in March n/a Bovar-Concord Environmental (1995)
Westworth, Brusnyk and Associates
1995 Syncrude Aurora North 0.10 in January most in black spruce-tamarack
(1996a)
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-1 Moose Aerial Survey Results Within the Region (continued)
Results
2
otherwise noted]
preferred closed deciduous, closed mixedwood
and avoided closed jack pine, closed white
Suncor Mine, Lease 23 and 0.20 in February spruce, mixed coniferous, black spruce, Westworth, Brusnyk and Associates
1996
Steepbank Mine 0.32 in December wetlands shrub complex and disturbed habitat in (1996c)
February; avoided closed jack pine, closed white
spruce and mixed coniferous in December
preferred closed deciduous, closed mixedwood
and avoided closed jack pine, closed white
0.24 in February spruce, mixed coniferous, black spruce, wetlands Westworth, Brusnyk and Associates
1996 Steepbank Study Area
0.24 in December shrub complex and disturbed habitat in February (1996b)
avoided closed jack pine, closed white spruce and
mixed coniferous in December
1998 Suncor Firebag Project 0.2 in February most in FTNN Suncor (2000)
1999 Mobil Lease 36 0.22 in February most in FONS, FTNN and FT/STNN Golder (1999b)
0.37 in December
1999 to 2000 Petro-Canada MacKay River found mostly in d1 AXYS (2000a)
0.17 in February
Canadian Natural Primrose
2000 0.07 n/a Canadian Natural (2000)
and Wolf Lake (PAW) Project
PanCanadian Christina Lake
2000 0.04 in late winter three in BTNN and two in FTNN Golder (2000c)
Thermal Project Study Area
TrueNorth Fort Hills Oil 0.22 in mid winter only in d1, b1 and disturbed in mid winter
2000 Golder (2000b)
Sands Project 0.25 in late winter most in d1 and d2 in late winter
0.20 in January
2000 OPTI Long Lake Project most observations in FTNN and BTNN OPTI (2000)
0.28 in March
2001 Rio Alto Kirby Project 0.08 in February two moose observed in FTNN Rio Alto (2002)
Petro-Canada Meadow
2001 0.21 in February most observations in FTNN, d2 and e1 Petro-Canada (2001)
Creek Project
Shell Jackpine Mine –
2001 0.21 most observations in FTNN, h1, SONS and d2 Golder (2002a)
Phase 1
Canadian Natural Horizon
2001 0.15 most observations in d1, d2 and e1 Canadian Natural (2002)
Project
Petro-Canada Meadow
observed in BTNN, SONS, FTNN, d1, d2 and d3
2002 Creek Aerial Ungulate 0.10 in February Golder (2002b)
ecosite phases/wetlands types
Survey
Petro-Canada Meadow observed in d3, g1, BTNN, SONS, and WONN
2003 0.13 in February Golder (2003a)
Creek Aerial Caribou Survey ecosite phase/wetlands types
Suncor South Tailings Pond
2002 0.1 observed in b3 and FTNN Golder (2003b)
Project
2002 Devon Jackfish Project 0.16 most observations in closed aspen forest Devon (2003)
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-1 Moose Aerial Survey Results Within the Region (continued)
Results
2
otherwise noted]
Cenovus Christina Lake
2003 0.09 observed in d2 and FONS Golder (2004a)
Thermal Project
MEG Christina Lake observed within d1, d2, BTNN and FONS
2004 0.07 MEG (2005a)
Regional Project
0.10 observed in b3
2004 Suncor Voyageur Suncor (2005)
0.05 observed in FTNN
2004 to 2005 Primrose East Expansion 0.05 observed in d1, d2, BTNN, and FONS Canadian Natural (2006)
observed in burn area, aspen forest, mixedwood
2006 Devon Jackfish 2 Project 0.16 forest, treed bog, treed fen, tall shrub, and open Devon (2006)
jack pine forest
observed in d1, d2, d3, e3, BTNN, FONS,
2006 to 2007 Suncor Voyageur South 0.25 Golder (2007a)
FTNN, cutblocks, BTNN, FONS
2006 Thermal Expansion Project, 0.06 observed in FTNN, FONS EnCana (2009)
Phases 1E, 1F and 1G
Canadian Natural Kirby
2007 no observations n/a Canadian Natural (2007)
Project
Shell Jackpine Mine observed in BUu, BTNN, CC, d1, d2, FTNN,
0.22
2007 Expansion and FONG Golder (2007b)
n/a
Pierre River Mining Areas n/a
Suncor Millennium Mine
2007 0.03 observed in d2, BTNN, FTNN Golder (2007b)
Dump 9 (MD9)
MEG Christina Lake
2008 0.02 d1, d2, and FTNN MEG (2008)
Regional Project Phase 3
2008 Total Joslyn Mine Expansion 0.16 d1, d2, d2-dist, and disturbed transmission line Unpublished data
observed in b1, d1, d2, STNN, SONS, BUu,
2008 EnerPlus Kirby Project 0.46 EnerPlus (2008)
BUw, meadow, and cutblock
Cenovus Narrows Lake
2008 1 individual not determined Cenovus (2010)
Project
2008 West Ells SAGD Project No observations n/a Sunshine (2010)
STP McKay SAGD Pilot
2009 No observations n/a Southern Pacific (2009)
Project
2008 to 2010 Dover Commercial Project 0.038 primarily in wetlands and disturbed sites Present Study
(a)
AOSERP = Alberta Oil Sands Environmental Research Program.
(b)
OSLO = Other Six Lease Owners.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-2 Moose Productivity in the Region

Year Project Cow:Calf Ratio Reference
1975 to 1976 Syncrude Lease 17 10:5.6 Penner (1976)
10:6.2 in December
1979 to 1980 Syncrude Westworth (1980)
10:4.3 in February
1980 Canstar Project 80 10:3 in December Skinner and Westworth (1981)
10:3.0 in early winter
1981 to 1982 Canstar Lease Westworth and Brusnyk (1982)
10:3.2 in late winter
1995 Syncrude Aurora North 10:7.1 in January Westworth, Brusnyk and Associates (1996a)
10:8.3 in February
1996 Suncor Mine, Lease 23 and Steepbank Mine Westworth, Brusnyk and Associates (1996c)
10:6.4 in December
10:4.3 in February
1996 Steepbank Study Area Westworth, Brusnyk and Associates (1996b)
10:3.5 in December
1999 Mobil Lease 36 10:1.7 Golder (1999b)
10:6.3 in December
1999 to 2000 Petro-Canada MacKay River AXYS (2000a)
10:7.8 in February
2000 TrueNorth Fort Hills Oil Sands Project 10:10 Golder (2000b)
2000 OPTI Long Lake Project 10:8 OPTI (2000)
2001 Petro-Canada Meadow Creek Project 10:5 Petro-Canada (2001)
2001 Shell Jackpine Mine – Phase 1 10:1.1 Golder (2002a)
2001 Canadian Natural Horizon Project 10:3.5 Canadian Natural (2002)
2002 Petro-Canada Meadow Creek Ungulate Aerial Survey 10:6.7 Golder (2002b)
2003 Petro-Canada Meadow Creek Caribou Aerial Survey 10:7.5 Golder (2003a)
2002 Suncor South Tailings Pond Project 10:5 Golder (2003c)
2002 Devon Jackfish Project 10:6.4 Devon (2003)
2003 Cenovus Christina Lake Thermal Project 10:2.5 Golder (2004a)
2004 MEG Christina Lake Regional Project 10:2.5 MEG (2005a)
2004 Suncor Voyageur n/a Golder (2005)
2004 to 2005 Primrose East Expansion 10:5 Canadian Natural (2006)
2006 Devon Jackfish 2 Project 10:4 Devon (2006)
2006 to 2007 Suncor Voyageur South 10:5 Golder (2007a)
2006 Cenovus Christina Lake Thermal Expansion Project, Phases 1E, 1F and 1G 1:1 EnCana (2009)
2007 Canadian Natural Kirby n/a Canadian Natural (2007)
2007 Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion and Pierre River Mining Areas 10:1 Golder (2007b)
2007 Suncor Millennium MD9 10:1 Golder (2007b)
2008 MEG Christina Lake Regional Project too few to calculate MEG (2008)
2008 Total Joslyn Mine Expansion not determined Unpublished data
2008 EnerPlus Kirby Project 10:6.7 EnerPlus (2008)
2008 Cenovus Narrows Lake Project 10:7.5 Cenovus (2010)
2008 West Ells SAGD Project not determined Sunshine (2010)
2009 McKay SAGD Pilot Project not determined Southern Pacific (2009)
2008 to 2010 Dover Commercial Project 10:1.3 Present Study
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-3 Moose Track Count Survey Results Within the Region
Results
Year Project Habitat Reference
[Tracks/km-track day]
preferred tall shrub; avoided coniferous and
1975 to 1976 Syncrude Lease 17 0.14 Penner (1976)
disturbed areas
preferred riparian shrub; avoided jack pine
1980 Canstar Project 80 0.63 Skinner and Westworth (1981)
and open muskeg
preferred willow and riparian aspen; avoided
1981 to 1982 Canstar Lease 0.33 jack pine, white spruce, black spruce and Westworth and Brusnyk (1982)
riparian white spruce
1995 Solv-Ex no observations n/a Bovar-Concord Environmental (1995)
preferred cleared aspen; avoided mixedwood
1995 Syncrude Aurora North 0.11 forest, willow wetlands riparian balsam poplar, Westworth, Brusnyk and Associates (1996a)
riparian white spruce and riparian shrub
February: avoided jack pine, white spruce,
mixed coniferous mixedwood, shorelines and
Suncor Mine, Lease 23 and 0.22 in February
1996 fen Westworth, Brusnyk and Associates (1996c)
Steepbank Mine 0.65 in December
December: avoided closed black spruce and
open tamarack fen
no preference
1997 Muskeg River Mine 0.26 most tracks observed in closed mixedwood- Golder (1997a,b)
white spruce dominant
January: avoided upland
0.29 in January
February: preferred riparian, avoided
1997 Suncor 0.30 in February Golder (1998a,b)
escarpment
0.19 in March
March: no preference
0.03 in January January: no preference
1997 Suncor Golder (1998a,b)
0.0 in February February: no preference
most observations in black spruce –tamarack
1997 Mobil Lease 36 0.32 URSUS and Komex (1997)
and tamarack black spruce bogs and fens
preferred BTNN, BFNN, FONS and
1998 Suncor Firebag Project 0.41 FTNN/FFNN Suncor (2000)
avoided b4, c1, d3 and g1
0.0 in reclaimed
1998 to 1999 Suncor Wildlife Monitoring 0.46 in riparian area n/a Golder (1999a)
beside disturbance
most common in cutblock, also common in
2000 ATCO Pipeline mean: 2.0 AXYS (2000b)
FONS, d1 and d2
TrueNorth Fort Hills Oil preferred e1; avoided d2, g1, BTNN and
2000 0.37 Golder (2000b)
Sands Project FTNN
Albian Sands Lease 13 0.56 in upland vegetation preferences not available due to
2000 Golder (2000d)
West 0.60 in riparian lumping by landform
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-3 Moose Track Count Survey Results Within the Region (continued)
Results
0.0 in Lease 86/17
2000 Suncor Wildlife Monitoring only riparian corridors sampled Golder (2000e)
1.68 in Lease 25/97
no preference
2000 OPTI Long Lake Project 0.25 most tracks observed in the d2 and FTNN OPTI (2000)
ecosite phase/wetlands types
highest track densities in e2; also observed in
Gulf Surmont In-situ Oil no overall tracks/km-
2001 b2, c1, d1, d2, e3, f1, g1, BTNN, FTNN, Gulf (2001)
Sands Project track day provided
FONS and FONG
mean densities:
0.56 in January
surveys conducted in riparian and upland
1999/2000
Albian Sands Lease 13 habitat
1999 to 2001 0.21 in January Golder (2001a)
West no evidence of use of riparian areas as
2000/2001
movement corridors
0.16 in February
2000/2001
No preference; most tracks observed in d2
2001 Rio Alto Kirby Project 0.57 in February and c1 ecosite/wetlands types, but also Rio Alto (2002)
observed in b3 and cutlines
tracks observed in c1, e1, BTNN, STNN;
Petro-Canada Meadow
2001 0.52 preference observed for BTNN, avoidance of Petro-Canada (2001)
Creek Project
FONS
Shell Jackpine Mine – tracks observed in b4, FTNN, g1 and
2001 0.47 Golder (2002a)
Phase 1 shrubland
tracks observed in d2, d3, cutblock and burn;
2001 0.16 preference observed for burn, avoidance of Canadian Natural (2002)
Project
d3
2002 0.72 tracks observed in FONS, FONG, and d2 Golder (2003b)
Project
2002 Devon Jackfish Project 0.26 highest track density in e1 Devon (2003)
Cenovus Christina Lake no fresh tracks
2003 old track observed in riparian creek area Golder (2004a)
Thermal Project observed
MEG Christina Lake no preferences determined, tracks observed
2004 0.34 MEG (2005a)
Regional Project within MONS, d1, d2 and FTNN
Suncor Monitoring Five Year
2004 0.59 surveys conducted in natural sites Golder (2004b)
Report
0.45 preference for deciduous forests
2004 Suncor Voyageur Golder (2005)
0.70 observed in b3, d1, d2, d3, and BTNN
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-3 Moose Track Count Survey Results Within the Region (continued)
Results
observed in d1, disturbed-cutline, FONS,
2004 to 2005 Primrose East Expansion 0.22 Canadian Natural (2006)
FTNN, and STNN; most in d1
most trails observed in burn area and closed
2005 Devon Jackfish 2 Project 0.49 Devon (2006)
riparian shrubland
2005 to 2006 Long Lake South Project 0.2 most observed in e3 OPTI/Nexen (2006)
2006 to 2007 Suncor Voyageur South 0.68 preference for b3, d1 Golder (2007a)
2006 Thermal Expansion Project, 0.25 avoidance FTNN EnCana (2009)
preference for b3, d1, e1, and FONS
Shell Jackpine Mine communities
4.27
2007 Expansion and Pierre River used a1, b1, e3, g1 ecosite phases and BTNN Golder (2007b)
Mining Areas 0.34
and FTNN wetlands communities less than
expected
StatoilHydro Canada Ltd.
2007 0.2 most observed in d2 North American (2007)
Kai Kos Dehseh
Suncor Millennium MD9
2008 0.22 preference for b3, e1, d1 Golder (2007b)
Update
2008 Total Joslyn Mine Expansion 0.86 highest track density observed in k2 and k1 Unpublished data
MEG Christina Lake
2008 0.23 observed in d1, d2, FTNN, and MONS MEG (2008)
Regional Project
2008 EnerPlus Kirby Project 0.29 BTNN, FTNN, STNN, and shrub wetlands EnerPlus (2008)
2009 to 2010 0.0.01 SONS Cenovus (2010)
Project
Highest track densities observed in lowland
2008 West Ells SAGD Project 1.0 Sunshine (2010)
shrub
2008 to 2009 McKay SAGD Pilot Project 0 n/a Southern Pacific (2009)
2008 to 2010 Dover Commercial Project 0.08 primarily BTNN and FTNN Present Study
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-4 Deer Aerial Survey Results Within the Region

Results
2
Year Project Species [Individuals/km unless Habitat Reference
otherwise noted]
1975 to 1976 Syncrude Lease 17 combined one mule deer observed Athabasca River Penner (1976)
Esso (1979), as reported in BP
1978 to 1979 Esso combined 0.14 n/a
Resources et al. (1985)
1980 Canstar Project 80 combined no observations n/a Skinner and Westworth (1981)
0.28 in 1979 to Gunderson and Rippin (1985), as
1978 to 1981 Alberta Environment combined n/a
0.50 in 1981 reported in BP Resources et al. (1985)
1981 to 1982 Canstar Lease mule deer no observations n/a Westworth and Brusnyk (1982)
in mixedwood, white
0.01 in early winter
1981 to 1982 Canstar Lease white-tailed deer spruce and aspen Westworth and Brusnyk (1982)
no observations in late winter
not available for late winter
0.31 in 1984 to Gunderson and Rippin (1985), as
1983 to 1985 Alberta Environment combined n/a
0.44 in 1985 reported in BP Resources et al. (1985)
Gunderson (1984), as reported in
1984 Alberta Environment combined 0.20 n/a
Canadian Natural (2000)
Gunderson (1984), as reported in
1984 Alberta Environment combined 0.44 n/a
Canadian Natural (2000)
aspen, shrubland and AENV (1993), as reported Esso
1993 Alberta Environment combined 0.53
shrubby fen (1997)
1995 Solv-Ex combined no observations n/a Bovar-Concord Environmental (1995)
most in cleared peatland,
1995 Syncrude Aurora North white-tailed deer 0.08 riparian shrub and black
(1996a)
spruce-tamarack
both in deciduous forest
Suncor Mine, L23 and February: 2 individuals Westworth, Brusnyk and Associates
1996 white-tailed deer 2 in mixedwood and 3 in
Steepbank Study Area December: 5 individuals (1996c)
deciduous forest
1998 Suncor Firebag Project combined no observations n/a Suncor (2000)
white-tailed deer 0.02 in February
1999 Mobil Lease 36 one d1 ecosite phase Golder (1999b)
mule deer no observations
Petro-Canada MacKay 0.15 in December
1999 to 2000 white-tailed deer most common in d1 AXYS (2000a)
River 0.04 in February
PanCanadian Christina
2000 white-tailed deer 0.02 in late winter three in c1 ecosite phase Golder (2000c)
Lake Thermal Project
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-4 Deer Aerial Survey Results Within the Region (continued)
Results
2
otherwise noted]
Canadian Natural PAW observed in b1 and d2
2000 combined 0.03 Canadian Natural (2000)
Project ecosite phase
TrueNorth Fort Hills Oil
2000 mule deer no observations n/a Golder (2000b)
Sands Project
TrueNorth Fort Hills Oil no observations in January only in b1 ecosite phase in
2000 white-tailed deer 2 Golder (2000b)
Sands Project 0.03 km in March March
2 observations recorded in
0.12 km in January; and not
2000 OPTI Long Lake Project combined the d1, d2 and d3 ecosite OPTI (2000)
observed in March
phase/wetlands types
2001 Rio Alto Kirby Project n/a no observations n/a Rio Alto (2002)
two individuals observed
Petro-Canada Meadow
2001 white-tailed deer 0.03 in the d2 ecosite Petro-Canada (2001)
Creek Project
phase/wetlands type
2001 combined no observations n/a Golder (2002a)
Phase 1
white-tailed deer observed
mostly in disturbed habitat,
Canadian Natural Horizon white-tailed deer 0.17 primarily cutblocks, also
2001 Canadian Natural (2002)
Project mule deer 0.01 observed in d3, e1, and
MONS mule deer
observed in d1 and d2
observations occurred
Petro-Canada Meadow
within upland areas;
2002 Creek Ungulate Aerial white-tailed deer 0.06 in February Golder (2002b)
majority in d2 and one
Survey
observation in b3
Petro-Canada Meadow observations occurred
2003 Creek Caribou Aerial white-tailed deer 0.04 in February within upland areas; d2 Golder (2003a)
Survey and d1 ecosites
2002 combined no observations n/a Golder (2003c)
Project
most observations in
upland habitats (mixed
2002 Devon Jackfish Project white-tailed deer 0.12 jack pine- aspen, aspen, Devon (2003)
mixed aspen- white spruce
and jack pine)
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-4 Deer Aerial Survey Results Within the Region (continued)
Results
2
otherwise noted]
2003 white-tailed deer 0.17 observations in a1 and g1 Golder (2004a)
Thermal Project
MEG Energy Christina Lake
2004 combined no observations n/a MEG (2005a)
Regional Project
2005 to 2006 Primrose East Expansion combined no observations n/a Canadian Natural (2006)
observed in upland
2006 Devon – Jackfish 2 Project white-tailed deer 0.02 habitats (aspen and mixed Devon (2006)
aspen-white spruce)
2006 to 2007 Suncor Voyageur South deer 0.04 observed in d1, d2, FTNN Golder (2007a)
2006 Thermal Expansion Project, combined 0.11 observed in FTNN EnCana (2009)
2007 Canadian Natural Kirby deer no observations n/a Canadian Natural (2007)
Shell Jackpine Mine no observations
2007 Expansion and Pierre River deer n/a Golder (2007b)
Mining Areas no observations
2007 Suncor Millennium MD9 deer no observations n/a Golder (2007b)

MEG Christina Lake
2008 deer not determined observed in d2 and cutline MEG (2008)
Regional Project
Total Joslyn Mine
2008 white-tailed deer 0.06 not determined Unpublished data
Expansion
2008 EnerPlus Kirby Project combined no observations n/a EnerPlus (2008)
2008 combined no observations n/a Cenovus (2010)
Project
2008 West Ells SAGD Project combined no observations n/a Sunshine (2010)
2009 McKay SAGD Pilot Project combined no observations n/a Southern Pacific (2009)
2008 to 2010 Dover Commercial Project combined no observations n/a Present Study
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-5 Deer Track Count Survey Results Within the Region
Results
Year Project Species [Tracks/km-track-day unless Habitat Reference
otherwise noted]
1975 to 1976 Syncrude Lease 17 combined no observations n/a Penner (1976)
1980 Canstar Project 80 combined one deer track observed n/a Skinner and Westworth (1981)
1981 to 1982 Canstar Lease combined one individual observed only in mixedwood forest Westworth and Brusnyk (1982)
Bovar-Concord Environmental
1995 Solv-Ex combined no observations n/a
(1995)
preferred aspen forest and cleared
peatland; avoided jackpine, black
Westworth, Brusnyk and
1995 Syncrude Aurora North white-tailed deer 0.26 spruce/ tamarack, fen wetlands,
Associates (1996a)
riparian balsam poplar, riparian
white spruce and riparian shrub
Suncor Mine, Lease 23 0.09 in February Westworth, Brusnyk and
1996 white-tailed deer preferred closed deciduous forest
and Steepbank Mine 0.14 in December Associates (1996a)
1997 Muskeg River Mine combined no observations n/a Golder (1997a,b)
1997 Suncor Winter Wildlife combined no observations n/a Golder (1998a,b)
tracks observed in aspen, aspen-
1997 Mobil Kearl Lake combined 0.04 URSUS and Komex (1997)
white spruce and jack-pine
1998 Suncor Firebag Project combined no observations n/a Suncor (2000)
0.57 in reclaimed
Suncor Wildlife
1998 to 1999 combined 0.0 in riparian area beside n/a Golder (1999a)
Monitoring
disturbance
2000 ATCO Pipeline combined mean: 0.9 most common in d2 and e2 AXYS (2000b)
2000 white-tailed deer 0.33 most in a1, b1, d2, e1 and e2 Golder (2000b)
Sands Project
Albian Sands Lease 13 0.08 in upland only in aspen dominated
2000 combined Golder (2000d)
West 0.02 in riparian only in aspen dominated
Suncor Wildlife 0.37 in Lease 86/17
2000 combined only riparian corridors sampled Golder (2000e)
Monitoring 0.57 in Lease 25/97
2000 OPTI Long Lake Project combined 0.75 preferred d2; avoided d1, FTNN OPTI (2000)
highest track densities in a1 and e2;
Gulf Surmont In-situ Oil No overall tracks/km-track day
2001 combined also found in b1, b2,b3, d1, d2, d3, Gulf (2001)
Sands Project provided
e1, e3, f1, h1, FONS and FTNN
mean densities: surveys conducted in riparian and
Albian Sands Lease 13 0.08 in January 1999/2000 upland habitat
1999 to 2001 combined Golder (2001a)
West 1.45 in January 2000/2001 no evidence of use of riparian areas
0.39 in February 2000/2001 as movement corridors
2001 Rio Alto Kirby Project combined 0.2 one track observed in SONS Rio Alto (2002)
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-5 Deer Track Count Survey Results Within the Region (continued)
Results
otherwise noted]
Petro-Canada Meadow preferred b1 and d2; avoided g1,
2001 combined 1.45 Petro-Canada (2001)
Creek Project BTNN and FONS
Canadian Natural tracks observed in d1, d2, d3 and
2001 combined 0.07 Canadian Natural (2002)
Horizon Project BTNN
2001 Jackpine Mine – Phase 1 combined no observations n/a Golder (2002a)
Suncor South Tailings
2002 combined no observations n/a Golder (2003c)
Pond Project
2002 Devon – Jackfish Project combined 0.74 highest track density in f1 Devon (2003)
Cenovus-Christina Lake
2003 combined 4.66 preferred disturbed areas Golder (2004a)
Thermal Project
MEG Energy Christina no preferences; tracks observed
2004 combined 0.41 MEG (2005a)
Lake Regional Project within d1, d2, d3, e2, c1, a1, FTNN
Suncor Monitoring Five
2004 combined 0.34 surveys conducted in natural sites Golder (2004b)
Year Report
preference for white spruce forests
0.19
2004 Suncor Voyageur combined and disturbed areas Golder (2005)
0.14
observed in b3 and BTNN
occurred in a1, b3, BTNN, d1, d2,
Canadian Natural d3, FTNN, g1, and WONN;
2004 to 2005 combined 0.83 Canadian Natural (2006)
Primrose East Expansion preferred WONN, avoided BTNN,
c1, and g1
2005 Devon Jackfish 2 Project combined 1.29 most observed in i1, d3, and d1 Devon (2006)
OPTI Long Lake South
2005 to 2006 combined 0.5 most observed in e2 OPTI/Nexen (2006)
Project
2006 to 2007 Suncor Voyageur South combined 1.35 preference for d2, BTNN Golder (2007a)
Cenovus Christina Lake preference for b1, b3
Thermal Expansion avoidance of b4, BTNN, d2,
2006 combined 1.35 EnCana (2009)
Project, Phases 1E, 1F clearcut, FONS, FTNN, g1, h1,
and 1G ROW
preference for d2, e3, g1 and
Shell Jackpine Mine
0.14 cutline
2007 Expansion and Pierre combined Golder (2007b)
0.31 FTNN are used significantly less
River Mining Areas
than expected
2007 Kai Kos Dehseh combined 0.3 most observed in i2 North American (2007)
MEG Christina Lake observed in a1, c1, d1, d2, d3, e2
2008 combined 0.41 MEG (2008)
Regional Project and FTNN
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-5 Deer Track Count Survey Results Within the Region (continued)
Results
otherwise noted]
2008 combined 1.91 preference for d2, e3, g1, h1 Unpublished data
Update
Total Joslyn Mine highest densities recorded in b1
2008 combined 0.17 Unpublished data
Expansion and b4
majority observed in b4, FTNN, and
2008 EnerPlus Kirby Project combined 0.27 EnerPlus 2008
STNN
majority in d1, d2, g1 and FONS,
2009 to 2010 combined 0.49 also observed in FTNN and Cenovus (2010)
Project
disturbed-linear
MacKay River
2007 to 2008 combined <0.01 one deer track found in d1 AOSC (2009)
Commercial Project
2008 West Ells SAGD Project combined no observations n/a Sunshine (2010)
Dover Commercial
2008 to 2010 combined no observations n/a Present Study
Project
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-6 Caribou Aerial Survey Results Within the Region

Results
2
otherwise noted]
1975 to 1976 Syncrude Lease 17 no observations n/a Penner (1976)
black spruce occupied most heavily year
(a) 2
1976 to 1978 AOSERP 4.17/100 km in winter round, while aspen or aspen conifer mixes Fuller and Keith (1981)
were used very little
1980 Canstar Project 80 no observations n/a Skinner and Westworth (1981)
1981 to 1982 Canstar Lease no observations n/a Westworth and Brusnyk (1982)
1995 Solv-Ex no observations n/a Bovar-Concord (1995)
1995 Syncrude Aurora North no observations n/a Westworth, Brusnyk and Associates (1996a)
Suncor Mine, Lease 23
1996 no observations n/a Westworth, Brusnyk and Associates (1996c)
and Steepbank Study Area
1998 Suncor Firebag Project no observations n/a Suncor (2000)
1999 Mobil Lease 36 no observations n/a Golder (1999b)
2000 no observations n/a Golder (2001b)
True North Fort Hills Oil
Sands Project
Canadian Natural PAW
2000 6 observations observed in c1/g1 Canadian Natural (2000)
Project
primarily observed in FTNN or FTNR,
2000 telemetry survey data BTNN, BTNI, BTNR, BTXC, c1 or g1, and Canadian Natural (2000)
Project
a1
2
0.00/km in January;
2
0.01/km in March; and 11
2000 OPTI Long Lake Project deciduous, fen and pond OPTI (2000)
incidental observations of
caribou sign
Petro-Canada Meadow
2001 0.35 in February wooded fen Petro-Canada (2001)
Creek Project
no observations aerially; 26 c1 and g1, e1, BTNN, FONS, FTNN,
2001 Rio Alto Kirby Project Rio Alto (2002)
incidental observations MONS, and WONN
2001 no observations n/a Golder (2002a)
Phase 1
Project
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-6 Caribou Aerial Survey Results Within the Region (continued)
Results
2
otherwise noted]
forage sight and tracks observed in treed
2002 Devon Jackfish Project no direct observations Devon (2003)
fen and shrubby bog
Petro-Canada Meadow
2002 0.03 in February treed bog Golder (2002b)
Creek Project
Petro-Canada Meadow BTNN, FONG, c1, FTNN, MONG, MONS
2003 0.15 in February Golder (2003a)
Creek Project and disturbance (well pads, cutlines)
Thermal Project
MEG Energy Christina
2004 no observations n/a MEG (2005b)
Lake Regional Project
2004 to 2005 Primrose East Expansion 0.04 FTNN Canadian Natural (2006)
2006 Devon – Jackfish 2 Project 0.05 shrubby/treed bog and treed fen Devon (2006)
Thermal Expansion
2006 no observations n/a EnCana (2009)
Project, Phases 1E, 1F
and 1G
2007 Canadian Natural Kirby no observations n/a Canadian Natural (2007)
Shell Jackpine Mine
2007 Expansion and Pierre no observations n/a Golder (2007b)
River Mining Areas
2007 Suncor Millennium MD9 no observations n/a Golder (2007b)
MEG Christina Lake
2008 0.04 BTNN MEG (2008)
Regional Project
Total Joslyn Mine
2008 no observations n/a Unpublished data
Expansion
2008 EnerPlus Kirby Project no observations n/a EnerPlus (2008)
2008 no observations n/a Cenovus (2010)
Project
2008 West Ells SAGD Project no observations n/a Sunshine (2010)
2009 McKay SAGD Pilot Project no observations n/a Southern Pacific (2009)
2008 to 2010 Dover Commercial Project 0.023 BTNN and FTNN Present Study
(a)
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-7 Caribou Track Count Survey Results Within the Region
Results
Year Project [Tracks/km-track day unless Habitat Reference
otherwise noted]
1975 to 1976 Syncrude Lease 17 no observations n/a Penner (1976)
1981 Canstar Project 80 no observations n/a Skinner and Westworth (1981)
only in mature
1982 Canstar Lease 0.01 Westworth and Brusnyk (1982)
mixedwood forest
1995 Solv-Ex no observations n/a Bovar-Concord (1995)
1995 Syncrude Aurora North no observations n/a Westworth, Brusnyk and Associates (1996a)
Suncor Mine, L23 and Steepbank
1996 no observations n/a Westworth, Brusnyk and Associates (1996c)
Study Area
1997 Shell Muskeg River Mine no observations n/a Golder (1997a,b)
1997 Suncor Wildlife Monitoring no observations n/a Golder (1998b)
1998 to 1999 Suncor Wildlife Monitoring no observations n/a Golder (1999a)
True North Fort Hills Oil Sands
Project
2000 Albian Sands Lease 13 West no observations n/a Golder (2000d)
only riparian corridors
2000 Suncor Wildlife Monitoring no observations Golder (2000e)
sampled
11 incidental observations of deciduous, fen and
2000 OPTI Long Lake Project OPTI (2000)
caribou sign pond
Gulf Surmont In-situ Oil Sands incidental observations in g1,
2001 n/a AXYS (2001)
Project c1, BTNN and FONS
tracks observed in d1,
BTNN, FONS; a
Petro-Canada Meadow Creek preference was
2001 2.1 Petro-Canada (2001)
Project observed for the d1 and
avoidance of d2 and
BTNN
2001 Rio Alto Kirby Project no observations n/a Rio Alto (2002)
2001 Shell Jackpine Mine – Phase 1 no observations n/a Golder (2002a)
Project
2002 Devon Jackfish Project no observations n/a Devon (2003)
Cenovus Christina Lake Thermal
Project
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-7 Caribou Track Count Survey Results Within the Region (continued)
Results
otherwise noted]
preference for FTNN,
MEG Energy Christina Lake avoidance of BTNN,
2004 0.51 (35 individual tracks) MEG (2005b)
Regional Project also occurred within a1,
c1, cutline, FONS, g1
tracks observed in
disturbed-cutline, c1,
FONS, FTNN, and
WONN; preferred
FTNN, avoided d1, d2,
g1, and BTNN
2005 Devon Jackfish 2 Project no observations n/a Devon (2006)
OPTI/Nexen Long Lake South most observed in j2 and
2005 to 2006 0.1 OPTI/Nexen (2006)
Project k1
2006 Expansion Project, Phases 1E, no observations n/a EnCana (2009)
1F and 1G
Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion one track observed observed in FONG
2007 Golder (2007b)
and Pierre River Mining Areas no observations n/a
2007 StatoilHydro Kai Kos Dehseh 0.09 most observed in j1, j2 North American (2007)
MEG Christina Lake Regional preferred FTNN and
2008 0.04 MEG (2008)
Project avoided BTNN
2008 Suncor Millennium MD9 Update no observations n/a Golder (2007b)
2008 Total Joslyn Mine Expansion no observations n/a Unpublished data
2008 EnerPlus Kirby Project 0.05 shrub EnerPlus (2008)
2008 to 2009 McKay SAGD Pilot Project no observations n/a Southern Pacific (2009)
preference for FONS
(63 tracks)
2009 to 2010 Cenovus Narrows Lake Project 0.50 Also observed in d2 (15 Cenovus (2010)
tracks) and FTNN (13
tracks)
2008 to 2010 Dover Commercial Project 0.03 BTNN and FTNN Present Study
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-8 Wolf Survey Results Within the Region

Results
otherwise noted]
0.14 animals/
1970 to 1975 traplines 2 n/a Boyd (1977)
100 km trapped
1975 to 1976 Syncrude Lease 17 0.07 no preference Penner (1976)
winter densities
1975 to 1978 AOSERP 2 2 n/a Fuller and Keith (1980b)
1/92 km to 1/198 km
1980 Canstar Project 80 0.01 only in jack pine and black spruce-muskeg Skinner and Westworth (1981)
preferred willow wetlands and riparian aspen;
1981 to 1982 Canstar Lease 0.04 avoided balsam poplar, jack pine, white spruce Westworth and Brusnyk (1982)
and riparian white spruce
Syncrude Aurora preferred black spruce/tamarack; avoided aspen Westworth, Brusnyk and Associates
1995 0.05
North forest and mixedwood forest (1996a)
Suncor Mine, Lease
0.14 in December Westworth, Brusnyk and Associates
1996 23 and Steepbank avoided closed mixedwood
0.09 in February (1996c)
Mine
Shell Muskeg River
1997 no observations n/a Golder (1997a,b)
Mine
0.31 in January
Suncor Winter
1997 0.0 in February January: preferred upland, avoided escarpment Golder (1998a,b)
Wildlife
0.0 in March
Suncor Winter
Wildlife
most in lake shore emergent habitat and along
main roads
Suncor Firebag
1998 no observations n/a Suncor (2000)
Project
0.09 in reclaimed 0.08 in
Suncor Wildlife
1998 to 1999 riparian area beside n/a Golder (1999a)
Monitoring
disturbance
2000 ATCO Pipeline mean: 0.5 most common in FONG, h1 and d1 AXYS (2000b)
TrueNorth Fort Hills
Oil Sands Project
Albian Sands Lease
2000 0.01 in upland 0.04 in riparian n/a Golder (2000d)
13 West
Suncor Wildlife 0.0 in Lease 86/17 0.11 in
2000 only riparian corridors sampled Golder (2000e)
Monitoring Lease 25/97
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-8 Wolf Survey Results Within the Region (continued)

Results
otherwise noted]
OPTI Long Lake tracks observed in the d2 and h1 ecosite
2000 0.01 OPTI (2000)
Project phase/wetlands types
Gulf Surmont In-situ no overall tracks/km-track day observed at low densities in d1, e1, e2, f1, FONS,
2001 Gulf (2001)
Oil Sands Project provided FTNN and FONG
mean densities:
surveys conducted in riparian and upland habitat
Albian Sands Lease 0.03 in January 1999/2000
1999 to 2001 no evidence of use of riparian areas as movement Golder (2001a)
13 West 0.04 in January 2000/2001
corridors
0 in February 2000/2001
Rio Alto Kirby tracks observed in b2, d2 and FONS ecosite /
2001 0.13 Rio Alto (2002)
Project wetlands types
Petro-Canada
2001 Meadow Creek 0.07 two sets of tracks observed in d2 Petro-Canada (2001)
Project
Shell Jackpine
2001 0.03 three sets of tracks in d2 Golder (2002a)
Mine – Phase 1
Canadian Natural tracks observed in b1, d1, d2, d3, FONS and
2001 0.08 Canadian Natural (2002)
Horizon Project cutblock
Suncor South
tracks observed in e2 ecosite phase; no habitat
2002 Tailings Pond 0.03 Golder (2003c)
preferences determined
Project
Devon Jackfish
2002 0.03 tracks observed in a1, d1, i2 and k2 Devon (2003)
Project
Cenovus Christina
2003 Lake Thermal no observations n/a Golder (2004a)
Project
MEG Energy
2004 Christina Lake 0.03 tracks observed in c1, g1 MEG (2005a)
Regional Project
Suncor Monitoring
Five Year Report
0.25 preference for mixedwood forests
0.01 tracks observed in disturbed-cutline
Canadian Natural
2004 to 2005 Primrose East no observations n/a Canadian Natural (2006)
Expansion
Devon Jackfish 2
2005 0.32 n/a Devon (2006)
Project
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-8 Wolf Survey Results Within the Region (continued)

Results
otherwise noted]
OPTI/Nexen Long
2005 to 2006 0.1 most observed in b1 OPTI/Nexen (2006)
Lake South Project
Suncor Voyageur
2006 0.17 preference for d1, d2 Golder (2007a)
South
Cenovus Christina
Lake Thermal
2006 Expansion Project, 0.10 avoidance of FTNN EnCana (2009)
Phases 1E, 1F and
1G
Shell Jackpine Mine
preference for d1, d2
Expansion and 0.07
2007 b3, BFNN, FTNN and g1 were used significantly Golder (2007b)
Pierre River Mining 0.21
less than expected
areas
StatoilHydro Kai Kos
2007 0.09 most observed in b1, d1 North American (2007)
Dehseh
MEG Christina Lake observed in b3, b4, c1, d1, d2, e1, g1, FTNN, and
2008 0.23 MEG (2008)
Regional Project disturbed cutlines
Suncor Millennium
2008 0.11 preference for d1, d2 Golder (2008)
MD9 Update
Total Joslyn Mine
2008 0.06 highest track densities recorded in b2 and k2 Unpublished data
Expansion
EnerPlus Kirby observed predominantly on a disturbed-cutlines,
2008 0.10 EnerPlus (2008)
Project FTNN, and STNN
West Ells SAGD
2008
Project
0.00 n/a Sunshine (2010)
0.97 in d1/b2
McKay SAGD Pilot 0.44 in d3
2008 to 2009
Project
tracks observed most frequently in d1/b2 Southern Pacific (2009)
0.12 in j1
0.00 in all other habitats
Cenovus Narrows
2009 to 2010
Lake Project
<0.01 FTNN Cenovus (2010)
Dover Commercial
2008 to 2010
Project
0.03 b1, b3, b4, c1, BONS, BTNN Present Study
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-9 Coyote Survey Results Within the Region

Results
Year Project [Tracks/km–track day unless Habitat Reference
otherwise noted]
2
1970 to 1975 traplines 0.44 animals/100 km n/a Boyd (1977)
preferred disturbed habitat; avoided aspen, aspen-
willow/alder and black spruce-willow
1978 Syncrude Alsands 0.29 n/a Alsands (1978)
Esso Cold Lake 2
1979 0.35 individuals/km n/a Esso (1979)
Production Project
preferred black spruce-muskeg; avoided aspen,
open muskeg and riparian shrub
preferred balsam poplar and jack pine; avoided
1981 to 1982 Canstar Lease 0.13 Westworth and Brusnyk (1982)
aspen, white spruce willow and fen
1995 Solv-Ex 0.72 most tracks in jack pine and black spruce Bovar-Concord Environmental (1995)
Syncrude Aurora Westworth, Brusnyk and Associates
1995 0.09 avoided cleared aspen and willow wetlands
North (1996a)
Suncor Mine, Lease preferred closed deciduous; avoided closed jack
0.45 in December Westworth, Brusnyk and Associates
1996 23 and Steepbank pine/white spruce, open black spruce and
0.13 in February (1996c)
Mine shoreline
most found in closed balsam poplar, closed
Shell Muskeg River
1997 0.10 mixedwood-white spruce dominant and closed Golder (1997a,b)
Mine
white spruce
0.24 in January
Suncor Winter
1997 0.0 in February January: preferred upland Golder (1998a,b)
Wildlife
0.0 in March
Suncor Winter 0.06 in January January: no preference
1997 Golder (1998a,b)
Wildlife 0.03 in February February: no preference
1997 Mobil Lease 36 0.06 no preference URSUS and Komex (1997)
Suncor Firebag
1998 0.03 no preference Suncor (2000)
Project
2.23 in reclaimed
Suncor Wildlife
1998 to 1999 1.75 in riparian area beside n/a Golder (1999a)
Monitoring
disturbance
2000 ATCO Pipeline mean: 0.6 most common in d3 AXYS (2000b)
2000 0.02 only in d2, e1, e2 and shrub Golder (2000b)
Oil Sands Project
Albian Sands Lease 0.03 in upland
2000 n/a Golder (2000d)
13 West 0.11 in riparian
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-9 Coyote Survey Results Within the Region (continued)

Results
otherwise noted]
no preference; however most tracks were recorded
OPTI Long Lake
2000 0.26 in the FTNN, SONS, d2, d1 and STNN ecosite OPTI (2000)
Project
found in most ecosite phase/wetlands types
Gulf Surmont In-situ No overall tracks/km-track day
2001 (b1,b2, b3, c1, d1, d2, d3, e2, e3, f1, f2, h1, BTNN, Gulf (2001)
Oil Sands Project provided
FTNN, FONS and FONG)
mean densities:
13 West 0.74 in January 2000/2001
corridors
0.17 in February 2000/2001
Rio Alto Kirby no preferences; however, most tracks observed in
2001 0.13 Rio Alto (2002)
Project the d2 and g1 ecosite/wetlands types
Petro-Canada almost all tracks observed in d2 ecosite
2001 Meadow Creek 0.57 phase/wetlands type, but three sets observed in Petro-Canada (2001)
Project BTNN; preferred d2, avoided BTNN and FONS
Shell Jackpine
2001 0.01 one set of tracks in FTNN Golder (2002a)
Mine – Phase 1
tracks observed in b1, d2, d3, e3, g1, h1, FTNN,
Canadian Natural
2001 0.20 FONS and BTNN; preference for d2, avoidance of Canadian Natural (2002)
Horizon Project
d1 (no observations)
Suncor South
tracks observed in d2 and FTNN ecosite/ wetlands
2002 Tailings Pond 0.60 Golder (2003c)
types; no habitat preferences determined
Project
Devon Jackfish highest densities in k3 and reclaimed industrial
2002 1.29 Devon (2003)
Project sites
Cenovus Christina
most tracks observed along rights-of-way and in
2003 Lake Thermal 0.50 Golder (2004a)
BTNN
Project
MEG Energy
highest density in e2, also occurred in a1, b4, c1,
2004 Christina Lake 0.45 MEG (2005a)
d2, d3, e2, FTNN, g1
Regional Project
Suncor Monitoring
Five Year Report
preference for disturbed areas
1.04
2004 Suncor Voyageur observed in a1, b1, b3, b4, d2, d3, g1, BTNN, Golder (2005)
0.49
disturbed-cutline
Canadian Natural
2004 to 2005 Primrose East 0.12 observed in FONS, WONN, and SONS Canadian Natural (2006)
Expansion
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-9 Coyote Survey Results Within the Region (continued)

Results
otherwise noted]
Devon Jackfish 2
2005 0.61 most observed in i1 and h1 Devon (2006)
Project
OPTI/Nexen Long
2005 to 2006 0.2 most observed in f1 OPTI/Nexen (2006)
Lake South Project
Suncor Voyageur
2006 0.17 preference for e1, ROW Golder (2007a)
South
Cenovus Christina
Lake Thermal
preference of BTNN
2006 Expansion Project, 0.43 EnCana (2009)
avoidance of FTNN
Phases 1E, 1F and
1G
Shell Jackpine Mine
preference for d1
Expansion and 0.21
2007 FTNN and h1 were used significantly less than Golder (2007b)
expected
areas
2007 0.2 most observed in e1 North American (2007)
Dehseh
MEG Christina Lake
2008 0.31 most occurred on cutlines MEG (2008)
Regional Project
Suncor Millennium
2008 0.20 preference for e1, ROW Golder (2008)
MD9 Update
Total Joslyn Mine
2008 0.17 highest track density recorded in k2 Unpublished data
Expansion
EnerPlus Kirby observed predominantly within shrub and on a
2008 0.07 EnerPlus (2008)
Project disturbed road
West Ells SAGD
2008 0.04 deciduous Sunshine (2010)
Project
McKay SAGD Pilot 0.30 in j1
2008 to 2009 j1 Southern Pacific (2009)
Project 0.00 in all other habitats
Cenovus Narrows highest track densities in b3 and disturbed-linear,
2009 to 2010 0.09 Cenovus (2010)
Lake Project also observed in b1, c1, g1 and FONS
Dover Commercial
2008 to 2010 no observations n/a Present Study
Project
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-10 Red Fox Survey Results Within the Region

Results
otherwise noted]
2
1970 to 1975 traplines 0.59 animals/ 100 km trapped n/a Boyd (1977)
most found in disturbed habitat and forested black
spruce
1980 Canstar Project 80 0.08 avoided aspen and open muskeg Skinner and Westworth (1981)
avoided aspen, white spruce, fen and willow
wetlands
1995 Solv-Ex 0.95 most tracks in aspen and aspen-white spruce Bovar-Concord Environmental (1995)
Syncrude Aurora found in mixedwood forest, fen wetlands, cleared Westworth, Brusnyk and Associates
1995 0.01
North peatland, riparian white spruce and riparian shrub (1996a)
Suncor Mine, Lease
only in closed deciduous, disturbed and mixed Westworth, Brusnyk and Associates
1996 23 and Steepbank 0.02
coniferous (1996c)
Mine
Shell Muskeg River
Mine
0.05 in January
Suncor Winter January: no preference
1997 0.02 in February Golder (1998a,b)
Wildlife February: no preference
0.0 in March
Suncor Winter
Wildlife
tracks recorded in closed black spruce and dwarf
birch-willow shrubland
Suncor Firebag
1998 0.01 only in c1, FONS and FTNN/FFNN Suncor (2000)
Project
0.03 in reclaimed
Suncor Wildlife
1998 to 1999 0.23 in riparian area beside n/a Golder (1999a)
Monitoring
disturbance
2000 ATCO Pipeline mean: 0.1 observed in e2 and d1 AXYS (2000b)
2000 0.03 found in d2, d3 and shrub Golder (2000b)
Oil Sands Project
Albian Sands Lease 0.31 in upland
2000 n/a Golder (2000d)
13 West 0.10 in riparian
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-10 Red Fox Survey Results Within the Region (continued)
Results
otherwise noted]
OPTI Long Lake most tracks observed in the h1 and d2 ecosite
2000 0.19 OPTI (2000)
Project phase
Gulf Surmont In-situ no overall tracks/km-track day
2001 one observation in b2 ecosite phase Gulf (2001)
Oil Sands Project provided
mean densities:
13 West 0 in January 2000/2001
corridors
0.01 in February 2000/2001
Petro-Canada
2001 Meadow Creek 0.36 observed in b1, b3, c1, d2, e2 and BTNN Petro-Canada (2001)
Project
Shell Jackpine
2001 0.03 observed in BTNN Golder (2002a)
Mine – Phase 1
Canadian Natural
2001 one set of tracks observed tracks observed in SONS Canadian Natural (2002)
Horizon Project
Suncor South
2002 no observations n/a Golder (2003c)
Tailings Pond Project
Devon Jackfish
2002 0.10 not able to determine preference Devon (2003)
Project
Cenovus Christina
2003 only 1 incidental observation n/a Golder (2004a)
MEG Energy
2004 Christina Lake 0.01 unable to determine preference, observed in FTNN MEG (2005a)
Regional Project
0.02 preference for open habitats with brushy shelter
no observations n/a
Canadian Natural
2004 to 2005 Primrose East no observations n/a Canadian Natural (2006)
Expansion
Devon – Jackfish 2
2005 no observations n/a Devon (2006)
Project
OPTI/Nexen Long
2005 to 2006 0.02 most observed in b4 and d1 OPTI/Nexen (2006)
Lake South Project
Suncor Voyageur observed in d1, d2, ROW, no demonstrated
2006 0.03 Golder (2007a)
South preference
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-10 Red Fox Survey Results Within the Region (continued)
Results
otherwise noted]
Cenovus Christina
Lake Thermal
2006 Expansion Project, 0.08 observed in b3, BTNN, e3, FTNN, g1 EnCana (2009)
Phases 1E, 1F and
1G
Shell Jackpine Mine
Expansion and 0.02
2007 observed in BTNN, clearcut, cutline, d1,d2, d3 Golder (2007b)
areas
2007 Kai Kos Dehseh 0.02 most observed in d1 North American (2007)
MEG Christina Lake
2008 0.03 observed only on cutlines and roads MEG (2008)
Regional Project
Suncor Millennium
2008 0.04 observed in g1 Golder (2008)
MD9 Update
Total Joslyn Mine
2008 0.01 observed in d1 Unpublished data
Expansion
EnerPlus Kirby
2008 no observations n/a EnerPlus (2008)
Project
West Ells SAGD
2008 0.00 n/a Sunshine (2010)
Project
McKay SAGD Pilot
2008 to 2009 0.00 n/a Southern Pacific (2009)
Project
Cenovus Narrows
2009 to 2010 no observations n/a Cenovus (2010)
Lake Project
Dover Commercial
2008 to 2010 no observations n/a Present Study
Project
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-11 Canada Lynx Survey Results Within the Region

Results
Year Project [Tracks/km-track day Habitat Reference
unless otherwise noted]
3.37 animals/
100 km trapped
1975 to 1976 Syncrude Lease 17 0.002 only in black spruce Penner (1976)
preferred black spruce-muskeg; avoided
1980 Canstar Project 80 0.06 aspen, mixedwood, open muskeg, riparian Skinner and Westworth (1981)
shrub and riparian white spruce
preferred aspen and riparian aspen;
1981 to 1982 Canstar Lease 0.13 avoided jack pine, white spruce, black Westworth and Brusnyk (1982)
spruce, fen and willow wetlands
2
1985 BP Resources (Wolf Lake) 0.1 individuals/km n/a BP Resources et al. (1985)
Bovar-Concord Environmental
1995 Solv-Ex 0.24 only in black spruce
(1995)
1995 Syncrude Aurora North no observations n/a
Associates (1996a)
no observations in only in closed deciduous, mixed
1996 Suncor Mine, Lease 23 and Steepbank Mine December coniferous, black spruce-tamarack and
Associates (1996c)
0.01 in February disturbed
1997 Shell Muskeg River Mine no observations n/a Golder (1997a,b)
0.0 in January
February: no preference
1997 Suncor Winter Wildlife 0.02 in February Golder (1998a,b)
0.05 in March
1997 Suncor Winter Wildlife no observations n/a Golder (1998a,b)
1997 Mobil Lease 36 no observations n/a URSUS and Komex (1997)
tracks found in coniferous forest (jack
no overall tracks/km-track
1999 AEC Foster Creek SAGD Project pine/black spruce, treed bogs and shrubby AXYS (1999)
day provided
fens
2000 ATCO Pipeline mean: 3.2 most common in FONG, and FONS AXYS (2000b)
2000 TrueNorth Fort Hills Oil Sands Project 0.01 found in d2 and e2 Golder (2000b)
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-11 Canada Lynx Survey Results Within the Region (continued)
Results
0.13 in upland
2000 Albian Sands Lease 13 West n/a Golder (2000d)
0.14 in riparian
0.0 in Lease 86/17
0.04 in Lease 25/97
most tracks were recorded in the d2, d1,
2000 OPTI Long Lake Project 0.50 FTNN and h1 ecosite phase/wetlands OPTI (2000)
types
found in most ecosite phase/wetlands
no overall tracks/ types (a1, b1, b2, b3, c1, d1, d2, d3, e2,
2001 Gulf Surmont In-situ Oil Sands Project Gulf (2001)
km-track day provided e3, g1, h1, BTNN, FTNN, FONS and
FONG)
mean densities:
0.14 in January
1999/2000
habitat
1999 to 2001 Albian Sands Lease 13 West 0.21 in January Golder (2001a)
no evidence of use of riparian areas as
2000/2001
movement corridors
0.28 in February
2000/2001
no preference observed, tracks found in
2001 Rio Alto Kirby Project 0.25 Rio Alto (2002)
b3, g1, FONS, FTNN, STNN
found most commonly in the BTNN and g1,
2001 Petro-Canada Meadow Creek Project 0.34 Petro-Canada (2001)
but also observed in BFNN, c1, STNN
2001 Shell Jackpine Mine – Phase 1 0.54 preferred d2; avoided FONS Golder (2002a)
tracks observed in b3, d1, d2, d3, e3, g1,
BTNN, FTNN, FONS, STNN, SONS and
2001 Canadian Natural Horizon Project 0.84 Canadian Natural (2002)
WONN; preference for d1, avoidance of
d2, FONG, SONS and burn
tracks observed in d2 ecosite phase; with
2002 Suncor South Tailings Pond Project 0.41 habitat preference for d2 and avoidance of Golder (2003c)
FONS determined
2002 Devon Jackfish Project 0.56 highest track densities in k1 and j1 Devon (2003)
2003 Cenovus Christina Lake Thermal Project not observed n/a Golder (2004a)
2004 Suncor Monitoring Five Year Report 0.08 surveys conducted in natural sites Golder (2004b)
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-11 Canada Lynx Survey Results Within the Region (continued)
Results
no preferences, highest densities in
2004 MEG Energy CLRP 0.13 MEG (2005a)
disturbed-cutline, BTNN
no preference determined
0.06
2004 Suncor Voyageur observed in MONS, FTNN and disturbed - Golder (2005)
0.04
road
2004 to 2005 Primrose East Expansion 0.04 observed in FTNN and g1 Canadian Natural (2006)
2005 Devon Jackfish 2 Project 0.05 observed in a1, b1, c1, and g1 Devon (2006)
2005 to 2006 Long Lake South Project 0.2 most observed in f2 and f3 OPTI/Nexen (2006)
observed in b1, b3, b4, BTNN, FONS,
2006 Suncor Voyageur South 0.02 FTNN, g1, road habitats, no preference Golder (2007a)
demonstrated
Cenovus Christina Lake Thermal Expansion
2006 0.09 avoidance of FTNN EnCana (2009)
Project, Phases 1E, 1F and 1G
Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion and Pierre 0.11 observed in b1, b3, BTNN, d2, d3, FONS,
2007 Golder (2007b)
River Mining areas 0.07 FTNN, g1 and roads
2007 StatoilHydro Kai Kos Dehseh 0.04 most observed in h1, c1, g1 North American (2007)
2008 MEG Christina Lake Regional Project 0.06 tracks occurred in b4, d2, f3, and h1 MEG (2008)
2008 Suncor Millennium MD9 Update no observations n/a Golder (2008)
2008 Total Joslyn Mine Expansion 0.16 highest track density recorded in g1 Unpublished data
observed predominantly within shrub
2008 EnerPlus Kirby Project 0.07 habitat and additionally in BTNN and EnerPlus (2008)
disturbed road
lowland shrub, mixed coniferous, and
2008 West Ells SAGD Project 0.1 Sunshine (2010)
deciduous dominated mixed-wood
0.46 in c1
0.67 in g1
1.01 in d1/b2
0.15 in i1 tracks observed predominantly in l1 and
2008 to 2009 McKay SAGD Pilot Project Southern Pacific (2009)
0.33 in j2 d1/b2
0.13 in k1
2.00 in l1
2009 to 2010 Cenovus Narrows Lake Project 0.10 tracks occurred in d2 and FTNN Cenovus (2010)
2008 to 2010 Dover Commercial Project 0.23 primarily in BONS and BTNN Present Study
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-12 Black Bear Survey Results Within the Region

Year Project Results Reference
2
1976 Alberta Environment 0.38 bears/km Ruff et al. (1976)
2
1977 AOSERP 1 bear/2 to 4 km Fuller and Keith (1977)
2
1978 AOSERP 1bear/4 to 5.6 km Young (1978)
2
1980 AOSERP 25 to 50/100 km (telemetry) Fuller and Keith (1980a)
highest use in balsam poplar, mixedwood and white spruce;
1981 to 1982 Canstar Lease jack pine and black spruce habitats were low, while fen and Westworth and Brusnyk (1982)
willow wetlands were avoided
2
1982 Cold Lake 18 to 25/100 km (telemetry) Young and Ruff (1982)
1998 Suncor Firebag Project 12 incidental observations of individuals or sign Suncor (2000)
incidental observations in black spruce/jack pine, jack
2000 Canadian Natural PAW Project pine/aspen, treed fen, shrubby fen, aspen/white spruce, poor Canadian Natural (2000)
fen/bog, shrubby swamp, jack pine and cutblocks
2000 OPTI Long Lake Project 7 incidental observations of individuals or sign OPTI (2000)
12 incidental observations of individuals or sign in b2, d1, d2,
2001 Gulf Surmont In-situ Oil Sands Project Gulf (2001)
e2, f1, d1 and FONS
9 incidental observations of individuals or sign in b1, d1, d3,
2001 Petro-Canada Meadow Creek Project Petro-Canada (2001)
e1
2001 Rio Alto Kirby Project 8 incidental observations in b3, e2, and BTNN Rio Alto (2002)
2001 Shell Jackpine Mine – Phase 1 5 incidental observations in MONS, d2 and d3 Golder (2002a)
2001 Canadian Natural Horizon Project 14 incidental observations in b1, d1, d2 Canadian Natural (2002)
2002 Suncor South Tailings Pond Project 7 incidental observations in d2 ecosite phase and cutblocks Golder (2003c)
2002 Devon Jackfish Project no observations Devon (2003)
2003 Cenovus Christina Lake Thermal Project 4 observations of bear or evidence of bear Golder (2004a)
MEG Energy Christina Lake Regional 8 incidental observations or evidence of bear within d2 and
2004 MEG (2005a)
Project along cutlines
3 incidental sightings in d2
1 incidental sighting in FTNN
36 observations of sign in SONS, g1, c1, d2i
2004 to 2005 Canadian Natural Primrose East Expansion Canadian Natural (2006)
incidental observations of individuals in d2, h1, and STNN
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-12 Black Bear Survey Results Within the Region (continued)
2005 Devon Jackfish 2 Project no observations of sign Devon (2006)
no incidental sightings, see Appendix VI for remote camera
2006 Suncor Voyageur South Golder (2007a)
results
Cenovus Christina Lake Thermal Expansion 2 incidental sightings in c1, g1
2006 EnCana (2009)
Project, Phases 1E, 1F and 1G see Appendix VI for remote camera results
1 incidental den
2007 Canadian Natural Kirby Canadian Natural (2007)
see Appendix VI-G for remote camera results
Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion and Pierre 26 incidental observations
2007 Golder (2007b)
River Mining areas see Appendix VI for remote camera results
4 incidental observations
2007 Suncor Millennium MD9 Golder (2007b)
see Appendix V for remote camera results
2 incidentals
2008 Suncor Millennium MD9 Update Unpublished data
See Appendix II for remote camera results
7 incidental sightings in d1, d2, d3, FONS, and g1
2008 Total Joslyn Mine Expansion Unpublished data
See Appendix VI for remote camera results
2008 EnerPlus Kirby Project EnerPlus (2008)
See Appendix VI for remote camera results
2007 to 2009 Cenovus Narrows Lake Project Cenovus (2010)
2008 to 2009 MacKay River Commercial Project 3 black bears detected incidentally—no targeted surveys AOSC (2009)
2008 West Ells SAGD Project none observed Sunshine (2010)
2009 McKay SAGD Pilot Project none observed Southern Pacific (2009)
2008 to 2010 Dover Commercial Project 82 photographs of black bears at bait stations Present Study
(a)
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-13 Wolverine Survey Results Within the Region

Results
0.01 animals/
100 km trapped
1975 to 1976 Syncrude Lease 17 0.01 only in aspen and mixedwood Penner (1976)
estimated
1979 Syncrude Lease 17 2 n/a Westworth and Associates (1979)
0.08 individuals/100 km
1980 Canstar Project 80 0.005 only in black spruce-muskeg Skinner and Westworth (1981)
1981 to 1982 Canstar Lease no observations n/a Westworth and Brusnyk (1982)
1995 Syncrude Aurora North no observations n/a
(1996a)
Suncor Mine, Lease 23 and Westworth, Brusnyk and Associates
1996 no observations n/a
Steepbank Mine (1996c)
1997 Muskeg River Mine no observations n/a Golder (1997a,b)
in a black spruce burn and along
1997 Mobil Lease 36 0.01 seismic line through white URSUS and Komex (1997)
spruce-aspen mixedwood
2000 ATCO Pipeline no observations n/a AXYS (2000b)
TrueNorth Fort Hills Oil Sands
Project
2000 Albian Sands Lease 13 West no observations n/a Golder (2000d)
2000 Suncor Wildlife Monitoring no observations n/a Golder (2000e)
2000 OPTI Long Lake Project no observations n/a OPTI (2000)
1999 to 2001 Albian Sands Lease 13 West no observations n/a Golder (2001a)
Petro-Canada Meadow Creek
2001 no observations n/a Petro-Canada (2001)
Project
2001 Jackpine Mine – Phase 1 no observations n/a Golder (2002a)
2001 Canadian Natural Horizon Project no observations n/a Canadian Natural (2002)
2002 Suncor South Tailings Pond Project no observations n/a Golder (2003c)
2002 Devon – Jackfish Project no observations n/a Devon (2003)
Cenovus – Christina Lake Thermal
Project
2004 no observations n/a MEG (2005a)
Regional Project
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-13 Wolverine Survey Results Within the Region (continued)

Results
surveys conducted in natural
2004 Suncor Monitoring Five Year Report 0.004 Golder (2004b)
sites
2004 La Loche Road Link Project 1 track Christina River Golder (2004c)
1 set of tracks observed in e3
no observations n/a
2004 to 2005 Primrose East Expansion no observations n/a Canadian Natural (2006)
Canadian Natural Devon Jackfish 2
2005 no observations n/a Devon (2006)
Project
OPTI/Nexen Long Lake South
2005 to 2006 no observations n/a OPTI/Nexen (2006)
Project
0.02
2006 Suncor Voyageur South observed in BTNN, 1 individual Golder (2007a)
no observations
2006 Expansion Project, Phases 1E, 1F no observations n/a EnCana (2009)
and 1G
0.01
observed in a1, b1, b3, b4, c1,
Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion and n/a (see Appendix VI for
2007 d2, d3, e2, e3, FTNN, FONG, Golder (2007b)
Pierre River Mining areas remote camera results – 10
riparian, cutline
wolverine photos)
2007 Kai Kos Dehseh no observations n/a North American (2007)
MEG Christina Lake Regional
2008 0.03 c1 MEG (2008)
Project
2008 Suncor Millennium MD9 Update no observations n/a Unpublished data
2007 to 2008 MacKay River Commercial Project no observations n/a AOSC (2009)
2009 to 2010 Cenovus Narrows Lake Project no observations n/a Cenovus (2010)
2008 to 2010 Dover Commercial Project 4 photographs of wolverines n/a Present Study
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-14 Fisher and Marten Survey Results Within the Region
Results
Year Project Species [Tracks/km-track day Habitat Reference
0.43 animals/
1970 to 1975 traplines fisher 2 n/a Boyd (1977)
100 km trapped
1975 to 1976 Syncrude Lease 17 fisher 0.06 no preference Penner (1976)
no overall track count/km- tracks were found in bogs, shrublands and
1986 OSLO fisher Duncan et al. (1986)
track day provided fens
most tracks in jack pine, white spruce and Bovar-Concord
1995 Solv-Ex fisher 1.52
aspen-white spruce Environmental (1995)
1995 Syncrude Aurora North fisher 0.02 in January most in riparian balsam poplar
Associates (1996a)
Suncor Mine, Lease 23 and 0.21 in December preferred black spruce tamarack; avoided Westworth, Brusnyk and
1996 fisher
Steepbank Mine 0.04 in February upland coniferous/ mixedwood Associates (1996c)
0.0 in January
1997 Suncor Winter Wildlife fisher February: no preference Golder (1998a,b)
0.29 in February
January: no preference
0.02 in January
February: prefer upland, avoid riparian and
1997 Suncor Winter Wildlife fisher 0.59 in February Golder (1998a,b)
escarpment
0.15 in March
URSUS and Komex
1997 Mobil Lease 36 fisher 0.09 most in treed fens and bogs
(1997)
1998 Suncor Firebag Project fisher 0.61 avoided b1, b2, d2 and d3 Suncor (2000)
0.03 in reclaimed
1998 to 1999 Suncor Wildlife Monitoring fisher 1.64 in riparian area beside n/a Golder (1999a)
disturbance
most common in b1, also common in
2000 ATCO Pipeline fisher mean: 0.6 AXYS (2000b)
FTNN and FONS
2000 TrueNorth Fort Hills Oil Sands Project fisher 0.14 found in b1, d1, d2, BTNN and FTNN Golder (2000b)
0.81 in upland
2000 Albian Sands Lease 13 West fisher no landform preference Golder (2000d)
1.16 in riparian
0.0 in Lease 86/17
2000 Suncor Wildlife Monitoring fisher only riparian corridors sampled Golder (2000e)
0.46 in Lease 25/97
2000 OPTI Long Lake Project fisher 0.45 d2, h1 OPTI (2000)
mean densities:
1.02 in January 1999/2000
habitat
1999 to 2001 Albian Sands Lease 13 West fisher 0.47 in January 2000/2001 Golder (2001a)
0.77 in February
movement corridors
2000/2001
most often in d2 and e2 ecosite
2001 Petro-Canada Meadow Creek Project fisher 0.74 phase/wetlands types but also found in b1, Petro-Canada (2001)
e1, BTNN, STNN
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-14 Fisher and Marten Survey Results Within the Region (continued)
Results
highest densities in a1, also found in b2,
Gulf Surmont In-situ Oil Sands no overall tracks/km-track
2001 fisher c1, d1, d2, d3, e2, e3, g1, h1, FTNN and Gulf (2001)
Project day provided
FONS
no preference but tracks observed in b3,
2001 Rio Alto Kirby Project fisher 0.06 Rio Alto (2002)
c1, g1
most often in FTNN, FONS, STNN, BTNN;
incidentally observed on four occasions in
2001 Shell Jackpine Mine – Phase 1 fisher 1.00 Golder (2002a)
h1, STNN, FTNN and FONG ecosite
tracks observed most often in d2, also
2001 Canadian Natural Horizon Project fisher 0.19 Canadian Natural (2002)
observed in d3, g1 and cutblock
2006 OPTI/Nexen Long Lake South Project fisher 0.06 most observed in b4 OPTI/Nexen (2006)
2
1970 to 1975 traplines marten animals/100 km trapped n/a Boyd (1977)
Bovar-Concord
1995 Solv-Ex marten 0.08 only in black spruce
Environmental (1995)
preferred mixed coniferous and riparian
white spruce; avoided black spruce-
tamarack, open tamarack- bog birch, fen Westworth, Brusnyk and
1995 Syncrude Aurora North marten 0.15 in January
wetlands, willow wetlands, riparian balsam Associates (1996a)
poplar, riparian shrub and cleared
peatland
Suncor Mine, Lease 23 and 0.04 in December Westworth, Brusnyk and
1996 marten preferred upland coniferous
Steepbank Mine 0.10 in February Associates (1996a)
January: avoided d1, d2, d3, shrub and
0.38 in January
1997 Suncor Winter Wildlife marten WONN Golder (1998a,b)
1.16 in February
February: avoided a1 and d1
January: avoided upland
0.36 in January
1997 Suncor Winter Wildlife marten 0.35 in February Golder (1998a,b)
march: preferred escarpment and avoid
0.44 in March
riparian
most in riparian willow shrubland, white
URSUS and Komex
1997 Mobil Lease 36 marten 1.03 spruce – aspen mixedwood and white
(1997)
spruce
1998 Suncor Firebag Project marten 1.33 preferred FTNN/FFNN and avoided FONS Suncor (2000)
0.03 in reclaimed
1998 to 1999 Suncor Wildlife Monitoring marten 1.49 in riparian area beside n/a Golder (1999b)
disturbance
preferred b1 and BTNN avoided d1, d3,
2000 TrueNorth Fort Hills Oil Sands Project marten 0.42 Golder (2000b)
e1, g1, shrub and sons
Golder Associates
December 2010
Results
0.28 in upland
2000 Albian Sands Lease 13 West marten no landform preference Golder (2000d)
0.50 in riparian
most common in BTNN and shrubby bog,
2000 ATCO Pipeline marten mean: 1.8 AXYS (2000b)
also common in d3 and h1
0.0 in Lease 86/17
2000 Suncor Wildlife Monitoring marten only riparian corridors sampled Golder (2000e)
0.54 in Lease 25/97
tracks observed in the d2 and FTNN
2000 OPTI Long Lake Project marten 0.02 OPTI (2000)
ecosite phase/wetlands types
mean densities:
0.41 in January 1999/2000
habitat
1999 to 2001 Albian Sands Lease 13 West marten 0.52 in January 2000/2001 Golder (2001a)
1.02 in February
movement corridors
2000/2001
highest densities of tracks found in e2 and
Gulf Surmont In-situ Oil Sands no overall tracks/km-track
2001 marten g1, also found in b1, d1, d2, e3, f1, h1, Gulf (2001)
Project day provided
BTNN, FONS and FTNN
most often observed in b3 and d2 but also
2001 Petro-Canada Meadow Creek Project marten 0.57 Petro–Canada (2001)
observed in c1, g1, e1 and BTNN
most observed in FTNN, b1, BTNN and
2001 Shell Jackpine Mine – Phase 1 marten 0.46 Golder (2002a)
FONS
most observed in d2, also observed in d1,
2001 Canadian Natural Horizon Project marten 0.42 d3, e3, g1, BTNN, FTNN, FONS and Canadian Natural (2002)
STNN
preferred closed balsam poplar, closed
1997 Shell Muskeg River Mine combined 1.26 Golder (1997a,b)
mixedwood, open and closed aspen
2005 to 2006 OPTI/Nexen Long Lake South Project marten 0.2 most observed in l1 OPTI/Nexen (2006)
Skinner and Westworth
1981 Canstar Project 80 combined 0.05 no preference
(1981)
preferred mixedwood; avoided white
Westworth and Brusnyk
1982 Canstar Lease combined 0.12 spruce, black spruce, willow, fen and
(1982)
willow wetlands
1999 AEC Foster Creek SAGD Project combined tracks observed n/a AXYS (1999)
2000 OPTI Long Lake Project combined 0.47 d2, h1 OPTI (2000)
2001 Rio Alto Kirby Project combined 0.17 tracks observed in b3, c1, d2, g1 Rio Alto (2002)
most often observed in d2, b3, e2 and
2001 Petro-Canada Meadow Creek Project combined 1.40 Petro-Canada (2001)
BTNN; preferred d2 and avoided FONS
Golder Associates
December 2010
Results
most often observed in FTNN, FONS,
2001 Shell Jackpine Mine – Phase 1 combined 1.75 BTNN and STNN; preferred FTNN, Golder (2002a)
avoided d2 and h1
most often observed in d2 (high effort), e3
2001 Canadian Natural Horizon Project combined 0.97 and d1 but no significant preference or Canadian Natural (2002)
avoidance of habitat types
most often observed in FONS wetlands
type, also observed in BTNN, d2, and
2002 Suncor South Tailings Pond Project combined 0.85 Golder (2003c)
FTNN; preference for FONS and
avoidance of d2 determined
2002 Devon Jackfish Project combined 0.29 highest track densities in g1 Devon (2003)
2003 combined no observations n/a Golder (2004a)
Project
MEG Energy Christina Lake Regional No preferences could be determined but
2004 combined 0.09 MEG (2005)
Project recorded within g1, BTNN, FTNN
2004 Suncor Monitoring Five Year Report combined 1.45 surveys conducted in natural sites Golder (2004b)
preference for deciduous and white spruce
1.00
2004 Suncor Voyageur combined forests Golder (2005)
1.37
preference for b3
Canadian Natural Primrose East
2004 to 2005 combined 0.11 most in g1 Canadian Natural (2006)
Expansion
combined
2005 Devon Jackfish 2 Project (>90% 0.08 observed in sc, g1, burn area, and b1 Devon (2006)
fisher)
2006 Suncor Voyageur South combined 1.34 preference for d1 Golder (2007a)
2006 Expansion Project, Phases 1E, 1F combined 0.26 avoidance of FTNN EnCana (2009)
and 1G
preference for d1
Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion and 1.73
2007 combined FTNN is used significantly less than Golder (2007b)
Pierre River Mining areas 2.33
expected
2008 MEG Christina Lake Regional Project combined 0.03 BTNN and FTNN MEG (2008)
2008 Suncor Millennium MD9 Update combined 4.13 preference for d1 Unpublished data
0.31 highest track density recorded in f1 and f2
2008 Total Joslyn Mine Expansion combined Unpublished data
0.64 highest track density recorded in a1and f1
exclusively within shrub habitat, other than
2008 EnerPlus Kirby Project combined 0.14 EnerPlus (2008)
one occurrence in a BTNN
Golder Associates
December 2010
Results
primarily in lowland treed and white spruce
2008 West Ells SAGD Project marten 2.2 Sunshine (2010)
habitats
0.19 in c1
1.43 in h1
0.38 in i2
2008 to 2009 McKay SAGD Pilot Project combined 0.74 in j1 primarily in h1 and j1 Southern Pacific (2009)
0.13 in k1
0.67 in l1
recorded mostly within d2 and d3, also
2009 to 2010 Cenovus Narrows Lake Project combined 0.13 observed in d1, g1, BTNN, FTNN and Cenovus (2010)
disturbed-linear
2008 to 2010 Dover Commercial Project combined 0.57 primarily BTNN Present Study
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-15 Weasel Survey Results Within the Region

Results
1.92 animals/
100 km trapped
preferred aspen-willow/alder, treed black
1975 to 1976 Syncrude Lease 17 1.47 spruce and tall shrub; avoided black spruce- Penner (1976)
willow and disturbed
preferred black spruce muskeg; avoided jack
pine and open muskeg
preferred willow; avoided balsam poplar, jack
pine, white spruce and riparian white spruce
no overall track count/km- low densities in forested and unforested
1985 OSLO Duncan et al. (1986)
track day provided habitats, high use of logged areas
1995 Solv-Ex 1.75 most tracks in black spruce and jack pine Bovar-Concord Environmental (1995)
preferred black spruce- tamarack, open
tamarack bog birch and cleared peatland;
1995 Syncrude Aurora North 1.22 avoided aspen forest, mixedwood forest, mixed
(1996a)
coniferous, fen wetlands, willow wetlands and
riparian white spruce
preferred black spruce-tamarack, open black
Suncor Mine, Lease 23 5.16 in December spruce, open tamarack/fen and fen; avoided Westworth, Brusnyk and Associates
1996
and Steepbank Mine 0.83 in February closed jack pine, closed mixedwood, wetlands (1996c)
shrub complex, disturbed and shoreline
preferred closed mixedwood-white spruce
dominant and closed mixedwood; avoided
1997 Shell Muskeg River Mine 1.12 Golder (1997a,b)
closed balsam poplar, open and closed aspen,
closed mixed coniferous
January: avoided Shrub, BTNN and WONN
0.80 in January
1997 Suncor Winter Wildlife February: preferred BTNN; avoided a1, d1, d2, Golder (1998a,b)
0.78 in February
d3 and h1
0.71 in January
January: prefer riparian avoid escarpment
0.00 in March
most in tamarack forest and riparian willow
shrubland
preferred FONS; avoided a1, b1, b2, d1, d2
1998 Suncor Firebag Project 1.0 Suncor (2000)
and d3
0.16 in reclaimed
Suncor Wildlife
1998 to 1999 1.75 in riparian area n/a Golder (1999a)
Monitoring
beside disturbance
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-15 Weasel Survey Results Within the Region (continued)

Results
2000 ATCO Pipeline mean: 2.1 most common in h1 AXYS (2000b)
TrueNorth Fort Hills Oil preferred FTNN; avoided a1, b1, d1, d3, e2
2000 0.31 Golder (2000b)
Sands Project and BTNN
Albian Sands Lease 13
2000 no observations n/a Golder (2000d)
West
tracks mainly were observed in the FTNN, d2
2000 OPTI Long Lake Project 0.46 OPTI (2000)
and h1 ecosite phase/wetlands types
Albian Sands Lease 13
1999 to 2001 no observations n/a Golder (2001a)
West
Gulf Surmont In-situ Oil no overall tracks/km-track
2001 found in b1, b2, d2, e3, f1, f2, g1, h1 and FTNN Gulf (2001)
Sands Project day provided
no preference, most commonly observed in g1
2001 Rio Alto Kirby Project 0.38 and FTNN; one set of tracks each observed in Rio Alto (2002)
STNN and disturbed
Petro-Canada Meadow observed in c1, g1 and BTNN ecosite
2001 0.48 Petro-Canada (2001)
Creek Project phase/wetlands types
Shell Jackpine Mine – observed in d2, FONS, FTNN, h1, SONS and
2001 0.67 Golder (2002a)
Phase 1 STNN; preferred FTNN, avoided d2 and STNN
observed in b3, d1, d2, d3, e1, e3, g1, BTNN,
Canadian Natural
2001 0.65 FTNN, FONG, FONS, STNN, SONS, and Canadian Natural (2002)
Horizon Project
cutblock; avoided e3
Suncor South Tailings observed in FONS, FTNN, FONG and d2;
2002 1.00 Golder (2003c)
Pond Project preference for FONS and FTNN; avoided d2
2002 Devon Jackfish Project 0.9 highest track densities in k3 Devon (2003)
2003 0.69 most observations in FTNN Golder (2004a)
Thermal Project
2004 0.35 no preferences; most abundant in b4 and b2 MEG (2005)
Year Report
0.70 preference for treed wetlands
0.59 most abundant in b3 and BTNN
most observations in c1, g1, and BTNN;
preference for c1 and avoidance of WONN
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-15 Weasel Survey Results Within the Region (continued)

Results
2005 Devon Jackfish 2 Project 0.06 observed in j1 and d1 Devon (2006)
2005 to 2006 Long Lake South Project 0.1 most observed in f2 OPTI/Nexen (2006)
2006 Suncor Voyageur South 1.59 preference for ROW Golder (2007a)
Thermal Expansion preference for FONS, FTNN
2006 1.78 EnCana (2009)
Project, Phases 1E, 1F avoidance b3, b4, burn, d2, g1
and 1G
Shell Jackpine Mine preference for e3, FTNN and g1
0.61
2007 Expansion and Pierre b1, c1, d1, d2, cutlines and roads were used Golder (2007b)
0.21
River Mining areas significantly less than expected
2007 0.06 most observed in d3, i2 North American (2007)
Dehseh
MEG Christina Lake
2008 1.42 preferred FTNN MEG (2008)
Regional Project
2008 2.78 preference for ROW Unpublished data
Update
Total Joslyn Mine ermine 0.32 highest track density recorded in j1, f3, and b4
2008 Unpublished data
Expansion least 0.08 highest track density recorded in b4 and i2
observed in d2, BONS, shrub, and a disturbed
2008 EnerPlus Kirby Project 0.33 EnerPlus (2008)
road
2008 West Ells SAGD Project 0.8 most observations in white spruce Sunshine (2010)
0.38 in c1
0.70 in d3
McKay SAGD Pilot 0.57 in e1
2008 to 2009 most observations in k2 and d3 Southern Pacific (2009)
Project 0.09 in i1
0.21 in j1
1.33 in k2
mostly recorded in SONS, FONS, FTNN and
2009 to 2010 0.48 BTNN, also observed in b1, b3, d1, d2, g1 and Cenovus (2010)
Project
disturbed-linear
Dover Commercial
2008 to 2010 0.21 primarily in BTNN and FTNN Present Study
Project
(a)
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-16 Beaver Survey Results Within the Region

12.9 animals/
1970 to 1975 traplines 2 Boyd (1977)
100 km trapped
2
1975 to 1976 Syncrude Lease 17 0.14 to 1.0/km river or creek; 1.9/km Penner (1976)
(a) 0.32 active lodges/km of stream and 0.14 active
1978 AOSERP Searing (1979)
lodges/km of lakeshore
(a) Gilbert et al. (1979), as reported in Conor Pacific
1978 AOSERP 0.40 active lodges/km of stream
(1998)
2
0.32 food caches/km Westworth (1978), as reported in Conor Pacific
1978 Syncrude 2
0.26 active lodges/km (1998)
2
0.29 food caches/km Westworth (1979), as reported in Conor Pacific
1979 Syncrude 2
0.23 active lodges/km (1998)
2
0.11 active lodges/km or
1980 Canstar Project 80 Skinner and Westworth (1981)
0.16/km Muskeg River
2
1981 Canstar Lease 0.42 active lodges/km Westworth and Brusnyk (1982)
2
0.81 food caches/km
1983 AOSERP 2 Green (1983), as reported in Conor Pacific (1998)
0.94 active lodges/km
2
1984 Syncrude 0.44 food caches/km Pauls (1984), as reported in Conor Pacific (1998)
(b) 2
1985 OSLO 0.32 food caches/km Salter and Duncan (1986)
1985 BP Resources 0.2 active lodges/km in wetlands BP Resources et al. (1985)
0.3 active lodges/km for shoreline
1985 BP Resources Young and Bjornson (1985)
0.6 active lodges/km for creeks
2 Pauls and Arner (1987), as reported in Conor
1986 Syncrude 0.52 food caches/km
Pacific (1998)
2
2
2
0.09 active lodge and food caches/km and 0.57
2
1996 Aurora Mine active lodge and food caches /km on the previous Fort McKay Environmental Services Ltd. (1996)
Alsands Site
2
1998 Mobil Lease 36 0.37 active lodges/km Golder (1999b)
2
0.61 active lodges/km or
1.6 active lodges/km
0.02 active lodges/ha of lake
0.02 inactive lodges/ha of lake
0.00 active lodges/km of tributary
1.14 inactive lodges/km of tributary
2001 Petro-Canada Meadow Creek Project Petro-Canada (2001)
0.20 active lodges/km of drainage
2001 Shell Jackpine Mine – Phase 1 Golder (2002a)
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-16 Beaver Survey Results Within the Region (continued)

0.08 inactive lodges/ha of lake
2001 Canadian Natural Horizon Project Canadian Natural (2002)
2002 Suncor South Tailings Pond Project Golder (2003c)
2003 Cenovus – Christina Lake Thermal Project 3 incidental sightings during other surveys on the LSA Golder (2004a)
2
0.84 food caches/km of lake (0.008/ha)
2
MEG Energy Christina Lake Regional 1.03 active lodges/km of lake (0.010/ha)
2004 MEG (2005a)
Project 0.21 food caches/km of stream
0.17 active lodges/km of stream
3 incidental observations of individuals or sign during
2004 to 2005 Canadian Natural Primrose East Expansion Canadian Natural (2006)
other surveys
0.16 active lodges/km of watercourse
0.22 inactive lodges/km of watercourse
0.02 active lodges/lake
0.01 inactive lodges/lake
Cenovus Christina Lake Thermal 0.03 active lodges/km of stream
2006 EnCana (2009)
Expansion Project, Phases 1E, 1 F and 1G 0.04 active lodges/lake
0.06 active lodges/ha of lake (Jackpine, 2005)
0.62 active lodges lodges/km of watercourse
(Jackpine, 2005)
0.03 active lodges/ha of lake (Pierre River, 2005)
Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion and Pierre
2007 no active lodges/km of watercourse (Pierre River, Golder (2007b)
River Mining areas
2005)
0.02 active lodges/ha of lake (Pierre River, 2006)
0.53 active lodges/km of watercourse (Pierre River,
2006)
0.17 active lodges/km of watercourse
2008 MEG Christina Lake Regional Project MEG (2008)
1.03 active lodges/km of water body
0.61 lodges/km of watercourse
2008 Suncor Millennium MD9 Update 0.53 active lodges/km of watercourse Unpublished data
no active or inactive lodges on lakes
2008 Total Joslyn Mine Expansion 0.75 active lodges/km of watercourse Unpublished data
0.36 active lodges/km of stream
0.02 active lodges/km lake
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-16 Beaver Survey Results Within the Region (continued)

0.47 active lodges/km of waterways and shoreline
2007 Cenovus Narrows Lake Project Cenovus (2010)
0.03 lodges/km of lake
2008 West Ells SAGD Project 18 lodges and 3 food caches identified Sunshine (2010)
6 lodges and 1 food cache. Beaver lodge density
2009 McKay SAGD Pilot Project 2 Southern Pacific (2009)
estimated at 0.29/km .
2008 to 2010 Dover Commercial Project 0.18 active lodges/km of watercourse Present Study
(a)
(b)
OSLO = Other Siz Lease Owners.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-17 Muskrat Survey Results Within the Region

6.13 animals/
1970 to 1975 traplines 2 Boyd (1977)
100 km trapped
1975 to 1976 Syncrude Lease 17 estimate of 0.3 - 2.5 muskrats/ha Penner (1976)
2 2
0.03 houses/km (6 houses observed within the 176 km
1980 Canstar Project 80 Skinner and Westworth (1981)
study area)
2 2
1981 to 1982 Canstar Lease 0.02 houses/km (6 houses in 387 km study area) Westworth and Brusnyk (1982)
39 muskrat houses, common on Ruth Lake and Horseshoe
1983 Syncrude Murray and Pauls (1983)
Lake
1984 Syncrude 48 muskrat houses recorded Pauls (1984)
1986 Syncrude 25 muskrat lodges recorded, most on Horseshoe Lake Pauls and Arner (1987)
1989 Syncrude 64 houses recorded, most on Horseshoe Lake Pauls (1989)
1990 Syncrude no observations Pauls (1991)
1991 Syncrude low number observed Pauls (1991)
Fort McKay Environmental Services Ltd
1996 Aurora Mine no observations
(1996)
1997 Suncor Winter Wildlife no observations Golder (1998a,b)
2 2
1997 Mobil Lease 36 0.21 houses/km and 0.84 feeding platforms/km URSUS and Komex (1997)
2
2000 OPTI Long Lake Project 0.54 push ups/km OPTI (2000)
muskrat houses were observed in shrubby fen and shallow
2000 Canadian Natural PAW Project Canadian Natural (2000)
open water with wetlands
0.01 push-ups/ha of lake
0.29 push-ups//km of tributary
2
2001 Petro-Canada Meadow Creek Project 0.00 push-ups/km Petro-Canada (2001)
2001 Shell Jackpine Mine – Phase 1 no observations Golder (2002a)
0.02 push-ups/ha of lake
2001 Canadian Natural Horizon Project Canadian Natural (2002)
0.07 push-ups//km of tributary
2002 Suncor South Tailings Pond Project no observations Golder (2003c)
MEG Energy Christina Lake Regional
2004 2.06 push-ups/km of tributary MEG (2005a)
Project
2004 Suncor Voyageur no observations Golder (2005)
2004 to 2005 Canadian Natural Primrose East Expansion 2 incidental observations of individuals during other surveys Canadian Natural (2006)
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-17 Muskrat Survey Results Within the Region (continued)

2005 Devon Jackfish 2 Project no observations Devon (2006)
2005 to 2006 OPTI/Nexen Long Lake South Project 0.01 tracks/km-track day; most observed in j2 OPTI/Nexen (2006)
2006 Suncor Voyageur South 1 lodge and 12 push-ups observed Golder (2007a)
Cenovus Christina Lake Thermal Expansion
2006 1 lodge and no push-ups observed EnCana (2009)
Project, Phases 1E, 1F and 1G
Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion and Pierre
2007 no observations Golder (2007b)
River Mining areas
2
2008 MEG Christina Lake Regional Project 2.06 push-ups/km MEG (2008)
2008 Suncor Millennium MD9 Update no observations Unpublished data
2008 Total Joslyn Mine Expansion no observations Unpublished data
2008 EnerPlus Kirby Project no observations EnerPlus (2008)
2007 Cenovus Narrows Lake Project 0.02 houses/ha of lake and no push-ups Cenovus (2010)
2008 West Ells SAGD Project not surveyed Sunshine (2010)
2009 McKay SAGD Pilot Project not surveyed Southern Pacific (2009)
2008 to 2010 Dover Commercial Project not observed Present Study
(a)
(b)
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-18 River Otter Track Survey Results Within the Region
Results
otherwise noted]
0.12 animals/
100 km trapped
1975 to 1976 Syncrude Lease 17 0.0007 n/a Penner (1976)
0.01(all)
1980 Canstar Project 80 only in riparian habitat Skinner and Westworth (1981)
0.06 (riparian)
1981 to 1982 Canstar Lease 0.0005 n/a Westworth and Brusnyk (1982)
1985 BP Resources general observations n/a BP Resources et al. (1985)
only in riparian shrub, fen and Westworth, Brusnyk and Associates
1995 Syncrude Aurora North 0.02
willow wetlands (1996a)
Suncor Mine, Lease 23 and Westworth, Brusnyk and Associates
1996 0.01 only in shoreline
Steepbank Mine (1996c)
1997 Shell Muskeg River Mine 0.01 only in riparian shrub dominant Golder (1997a,b)
0.0 in reclaimed
1998 to 1999 Suncor Wildlife Monitoring 0.04 in riparian area beside n/a Golder (1999a)
disturbance
2000 ATCO Pipeline mean: 0.6 most common in FONG AXYS (2000b)
2000 Canadian Natural PAW Project incidental observations n/a Canadian Natural (2000)
TrueNorth Fort Hills Oil Sands
2000 0.02 found in FTNN and SONS Golder (2000b)
Project
0.0 in upland
2000 Albian Sands Lease 13 West n/a Golder (2000d)
0.11 in riparian
0.0 in Lease 86/17
0.06 in Lease 25/97
2000 OPTI Long Lake Project 1 set of old tracks observed mixedwood OPTI (2000)
surveys conducted in riparian
and upland habitat
mean observations:
no evidence of use of riparian
0.07 in January 1999/2000
1999 to 2001 Albian Sands Lease 13 West areas as movement corridors, Golder (2001a)
0.10 in January 2000/2001
however, the animal’s ecology
0.01 in February 2000/2001
suggests a preference for
riparian areas
one set of tracks observed in
WONN
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-18 River Otter Track Survey Results Within the Region (continued)
Results
otherwise noted]
Gulf Surmont In-situ Oil Sands no overall tracks/km-track day
2001 found in F1 and FONG Gulf (2001)
Project provided
Petro-Canada Meadow Creek
2001 0.05 tracks observed in d2 and e1 Petro–Canada (2001)
Project
2001 Shell Jackpine Mine – Phase 1 no observations n/a Golder (2002a)
2001 Canadian Natural Horizon Project 0.02 observed in SONS and WONN Canadian Natural (2002)
2002 Suncor South Tailings Pond Project no observations n/a Golder (2003c)
2002 Devon Jackfish Project 1 observed track in g1 n/a Devon (2003)
Cenovus Christina Lake Thermal 1 set of tracks observed
2003 n/a Golder (2004a)
Project incidentally
2004 2 incidental observations stream/MONS MEG (2005)
Regional Project
1 set of tracks observed
2004 Suncor Voyageur n/a Golder (2005)
no observations
Canadian Natural Primrose East
2004 to 2005 no observations n/a Canadian Natural (2006)
Expansion
OPTI/Nexen Long Lake South
2005 to 2006 0.01 most observed in e3 OPTI/Nexen (2006)
Project
2006 Suncor Voyageur South no observations n/a Golder (2007a)
2006 Expansion Project, Phases 1E, 1F no observations n/a EnCana (2009)
and 1G
observed in FTNN, riparian,
Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion and 0.02 SONS
2007 Golder (2007b)
Pierre River Mining Areas 0.01 observed in BTNN, SONS,
WONN
2007 StatoilHydro Kai Kos Dehseh 0.008 observed in h1, i1 North American (2007)
MEG Christina Lake Regional observed at a watercourse
2008 2 incidental observations MEG (2008)
Project surrounded by MONS
2008 Suncor Millennium MD9 Update no observations n/a Unpublished data
2 in shrub/meadow, 1 in fen, 1 in
2007 to 2008 MacKay River Commercial Project 4 incidental observations AOSC (2009)
conifer
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-18 River Otter Track Survey Results Within the Region (continued)
Results
otherwise noted]
2009 to 2010 Cenovus Narrows Lake Project no observations n/a Cenovus (2010)
2008 to 2010 Dover Commercial Project two detected incidentally n/a Present Study
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-19 Mink Track Survey Results Within the Region

Results
otherwise noted]
2.26 animals/
100 km trapped
most in riparian, aspen-willow and deciduous
1975 to 1976 Syncrude Lease 17 0.1 (a) Penner (1976)
dominated mixedwood
preferred riparian shrub; avoided aspen, jack pine, Skinner and Westworth
1980 Canstar Project 80 0.10
black spruce muskeg and open muskeg (1981)
preferred willow wetlands; avoided aspen, balsam
1981 to 1982 Canstar Lease 0.10 poplar, mixed wood, jack pine, white spruce and black
(1982)
spruce
Bovar-Concord
1995 Solv-Ex no observations n/a
preferred riparian shrub; avoided aspen and
mixedwood forest, jack pine, mixed coniferous, black Westworth, Brusnyk and
1995 Syncrude Aurora North 0.22 in January
spruce-tamarack, fen and willow wetlands, riparian Associates (1996a)
balsam poplar and cleared peatland
Suncor Mine, Lease 23 Westworth, Brusnyk and
1996 0.02 most in wetlands shrub complex
and Steepbank Mine Associates (1996c)
1997 Shell Muskeg River Mine 0.03 only in riparian shrub dominant Golder (1997a,b)
0.59 in January January: avoided a1, d3, d1, d2, h1, FTNN, BTNN and
1997 Suncor Winter Wildlife Golder (1998a,b)
no observations in February WONN
1997 Mobil Lease 36 0.01 only in riparian willow shrubland URSUS and Komex (1997)
1998 Suncor Firebag Project 0.01 only in FONS and FTNN/FFNN Suncor (2000)
0.13 in reclaimed
disturbance
2000 ATCO Pipeline mean: 0.4 most common in FONG AXYS (2000b)
Sands Project
Albian Sands Lease 13 0.00 in upland
2000 n/a Golder (2000d)
West 0.07 in riparian
0.0 in Lease 86/17
0.02 in Lease 25/97
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-19 Mink Track Survey Results Within the Region (continued)
Results
otherwise noted]
2000 OPTI Long Lake Project 0.02 tracks observed in wooded fen (FTNN) wetlands type OPTI (2000)
mean densities: surveys conducted in riparian and upland habitat
Albian Sands Lease 13 0.05 in January 1999/2000 no evidence of use of riparian areas as movement
1999 to 2001 Golder (2001a)
West 0.00 in January 2000/2001 corridors, however, animal’s ecology suggests a
0.15 in February 2000/2001 preference for riparian areas
Gulf Surmont In-situ Oil no overall tracks/km-track day
2001 found in riparian communities (f1 andf2) and FONG Gulf (2001)
Sands Project provided
Petro-Canada Meadow
2001 0.02 observed in e1 Petro-Canada (2001)
Creek Project
Phase 1
2001 one set of tracks observed observed in e3 Canadian Natural (2002)
Project
2002 no observations n/a Golder (2003c)
Pond Project
8 tracks encountered, 6 of which occurred in k3
2002 Devon Jackfish Project n/a Devon (2003)
associated with lower order streams
Thermal Project
2004 no observations n/a MEG (2005)
0.09 preference for shrubby wetland
no observations n/a
Canadian Natural
2004 to 2005 no observations n/a Canadian Natural (2006)
Primrose East Expansion
OPTI/Nexen Long Lake
2005 to 2006 0.01 most observed in k2 OPTI/Nexen (2006)
South Project
2006 Suncor Voyageur South no observations n/a Golder (2007a)
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-19 Mink Track Survey Results Within the Region (continued)
Results
otherwise noted]
Thermal Expansion
2006 0.01 e2 EnCana (2009)
and 1G
Shell Jackpine Mine
2007 Expansion and Pierre no observations n/a Golder (2007b)
River Mining areas
2007 0.01 most observed in j3 North American (2007)
Dehseh
MEG Christina Lake
2008 no observations n/a MEG (2008)
Regional Project
Update
Total Joslyn Mine
Expansion
McKay SAGD Pilot
2008 to 2009 no observations n/a Southern Pacific (2009)
Project
2009 to 2010 no observations n/a Cenovus (2010)
Project
2008 to 2010 Dover Commercial Project no observations n/a Present Study
(a)
Not statistically significant.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-20 Snowshoe Hare Survey Results Within the Region

Results
preferred aspen-willow/alder, mixedwood, forested black spruce
and tall shrub; avoided aspen-balsam poplar, jack pine, treed
black spruce, black spruce-willow, dwarf birch-tamarack,
riparian and disturbed
preferred mixedwood, black spruce-muskeg and riparian white Skinner and Westworth
1980 Canstar Project 80 21.15
spruce; avoided aspen, jack pine and open muskeg (1981)
preferred aspen and balsam poplar; avoided mixedwood, white
1981 to 1982 Canstar Lease 76.2 spruce, black spruce, willow, fen, willow wetlands and riparian
(1982)
aspen
(a) no overall track count/ track densities were greatest in aspen-dominated, pine
1986 OSLO Duncan et al. (1986)
km-track day provided dominated mixed and spruce forests
Bovar-Concord
1995 Solv-Ex 14.69 most tracks in aspen-white spruce and white spruce
preferred mixed coniferous and black spruce-tamarack; avoided
cleared aspen, aspen and mixedwood forests, jack pine, open Westworth, Brusnyk and
tamarack bog-birch, fen and willow wetlands, riparian balsam Associates (1996a)
poplar and riparian shrub
preferred closed jack pine, closed mixedwood, closed mixed
coniferous-black spruce dominant and open black spruce;
Suncor Mine, Lease 23 and 4.14 in December Westworth, Brusnyk and
1996 avoided closed white spruce, closed deciduous, black spruce
Steepbank Mine 0.49 in February Associates (1996c)
tamarack, open tamarack/fen, wetlands shrub complex,
disturbed, shoreline and fen
preferred closed jack pine, closed white spruce, closed balsam
poplar, closed mixed conifer-black spruce dominant, closed
1997 Shell Muskeg River Mine 22.36 mixedwood-white spruce dominant and closed black spruce Golder (1997a,b)
bog; avoided wetlands shrub complex, open black spruce bog,
riparian shrub dominant, open and closed aspen
January: preferred d2; avoided a1, d3, d1, h1, Shrub, BTNN and
0.98 in January
1997 Suncor Winter Wildlife WONN Golder (1998a,b)
5.80 in February
February: preferred d2; avoided d1, d3, FTNN and BTNN
12.41 in January January: preferred upland avoided riparian
1997 Suncor Winter Wildlife 15.98 in February February: preferred upland avoided riparian and escarpment Golder (1998a,b)
3.53 in March March: preferred upland avoided riparian
most in closed canopy black spruce, white spruce, black spruce-
URSUS and Komex
1997 Mobil Lease 36 3.99 tamarack bog and white spruce-aspen mixedwood; avoided
(1997)
aspen stands
1998 Suncor Firebag Project 8.96 preferred b4 and BTNN/BFNN; avoided a1, b2 and FONS Suncor (2000)
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-20 Snowshoe Hare Survey Results Within the Region (continued)
Results
10.41 in reclaimed
1998 to 1999 Suncor Wildlife Monitoring 23.29 in riparian area n/a Golder (1999a)
beside disturbance
2000 ATCO Pipeline mean: 204.7 most common in h1 AXYS (2000b)
Canadian Natural PAW found in aspen, jack pine/aspen, shrubby fen, treed fen,
2000 incidental observations Canadian Natural (2000)
Project aspen/white spruce, black spruce/jack pine
2000 10.13 preferred d2, g1 and FTNN; avoided b1, d1, e1 and SONS Golder (2000b)
Sands Project
10.85 in Lease 86/17
17.78 in Lease 25/97
preferred d2, d3, SONS and STNN; avoided e1, FONS, h1 and
shrub
Gulf Surmont In-situ Oil no overall track count/km- found in all habitats except e1. Highest track counts were found
2001 Gulf (2001)
Sands Project track day provided in b3 and a1
preferred b1, d3, e2, g1, STNN; avoided b3, d1, d2, FONS,
MONG, MONS, WONN and disturbed
Petro-Canada Meadow Creek preferred b3, c1, f1, g1, SONS; avoided b2, d1, d2, BTNN,
2001 48.77 Petro–Canada (2001)
Project FONS, FTNN, MONG, STNN and cutlines
2001 88.26 preferred b4, c1, FTNN, g1, h1, MONS and STNN Golder (2002a)
Phase 1
preferred b1, b3, d1, g1, h1, BTNN, FTNN, FONS, STNN, and
2001 44.57 seismic line; avoided b4, d2, e1, e3, FONG, MONG, cutblock Canadian Natural (2002)
Project
and road
observed in d2, FTNN, e3, FONS, BTNN, h1, e2, and disturbed
2002 19.37 (cutblock); significant preference for d2 and e3; avoided e2, Golder (2003c)
Project
BTNN, FONG, FONS, cutline/disturbance
2002 Devon Jackfish Project 23.2 highest track densities in a1,c1,i2,k1,h1,g1 and j1 Devon (2003)
2003 0.67 observed in BTNN,d2 and g1 Golder (2004a)
Thermal Project
MEG Energy Christina Lake Preference for a1, c1, d2, d3, g1; avoided b2, d1, FONS, FTNN,
2004 13.3 MEG (2005a)
Regional Project BTNN, MONS and WONN
Report
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-20 Snowshoe Hare Survey Results Within the Region (continued)
Results
preference for treed wetlands and black and white spruce
10.10
2004 Suncor Voyageur forests Golder (2005)
0.71
preference for d2 and BTNN
Canadian Natural Primrose preferred c1, d2 , d3, and g1; avoided FONS, FTNN, BTNN,
2004 to 2005 4.37 Canadian Natural (2006)
East Expansion SONS, and WONN
2005 Devon Jackfish 2 Project 2.2 observed in j1, c1, burn area, k2, and k3 Devon (2006)
2005 to 2006 8.4 most observed in e3 OPTI/Nexen (2006)
South Project
2006 Suncor Voyageur South 4.21 primarily observed in BTNN, d2, FTNN, g1, STNN Golder (2007a)
2006 Thermal Expansion Project, 5.76 primarily observed in BTNN, FTNN, FONS EnCana (2009)
Phase 1E, 1F and 1G
Shell Jackpine Mine 16.99 primarily observed in b4, g2 and STNN
2007 Expansion and Pierre River Golder (2007b)
Mining areas 27.45 primarily observed in b4, BFNN, g2, FTNN
2007 StatoilHydro Kai Kos Dehseh 3.8 most observed in c1, a1, j3 North American (2007)
2008 10.4 preferred a1, b3, b4, BFNN, c1, and e1 MEG (2008)
Project
2008 5.52 primarily observed in BTNN, d2, FTNN, g1, STNN Unpublished data
Update
2008 Total Joslyn Mine Expansion 15.90 primarily observed in f3, g1, h1, i1, j1, k1 Unpublished data
2008 EnerPlus Kirby Project 6.97 primarily observed in a1, d1, c1, and g1, EnerPlus (2008)
MacKay River Commercial
2007 to 2008 44.36 primarily in d1 and d2, but observed in all habitat types AOSC (2009)
Project
2008 West Ells SAGD Project 31.9 primarily in mixed coniferous and white spruce Sunshine (2010)
Cenovus Narrows Lake primarily observed in b2, but recorded in all sampled habitats
2009 to 2010 41.86 Cenovus (2010)
Project except non-linear disturbance
(a)
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-21 Red Squirrel Survey Results Within the Region

Results
otherwise noted]
49.6 animals/
100 km trapped
preferred mixedwood, white spruce, jack pine and forested black
2.33; 1.19 squirrels/ha based
1975 to 1976 Syncrude Lease 17 spruce; avoided aspen, black spruce-willow, tall shrub, dwarf Penner (1976)
on a midden study
birch-tamarack, riparian and disturbed
preferred aspen, mixedwood, jack pine and riparian white
Skinner and Westworth
1980 Canstar Project 80 2.08 spruce; avoided black spruce-muskeg, open muskeg and
(1981)
riparian shrub
preferred mixedwood avoided aspen, balsam poplar, willow, fen, Westworth and Brusnyk
1981 to 1982 Canstar Lease 1.59 in February
willow wetlands and riparian aspen (1982)
track densities were greatest in pine, spruce and mixedwood
(a) no overall track count/km-
1986 OSLO forests and in bogs, no tracks were observed in aspen forest, Duncan et al. (1986)
track day provided
shrubland and fens
Bovar-Concord
1995 Solv-Ex 6.89 most in white spruce
preferred mixed coniferous and riparian white spruce; avoided
cleared aspen, aspen forest, open tamarack-bog birch, fen and Westworth, Brusnyk and
willow wetlands, riparian balsam poplar and shrub and cleared Associates (1996a)
peatland
preferred closed jack pine and closed mixed coniferous-black
Suncor Mine, Lease 23 2.78 in December spruce dominant; avoided black spruce-tamarack, open black Westworth, Brusnyk and
1996
and Steepbank Mine 0.42 in February spruce, open tamarack fen, wetlands shrub complex, disturbed, Associates (1996c)
shoreline and fen
preferred closed white spruce, closed mixedwood-white spruce
1997 Shell Muskeg River Mine 5.65 dominant; avoided closed mixed wood, closed mixed coniferous- Golder (1997a,b)
black spruce dominant, open and closed fen
January: preferred d2; avoided a1, h1, Shrub, FTNN, BTNN and
0.35 January
1997 Suncor Winter Wildlife WONN Golder (1998a,b)
0.24 in February
February: no preferences
0.62 in January
January: preferred riparian; avoided upland
February and March: preferred escarpment; avoided upland
9.86 in March
most in white spruce-aspen mixedwood, jack pine, white spruce, URSUS and Komex
1997 Mobil Lease 36 2.62
black spruce-aspen and black spruce-tamarack (1997)
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-21 Red Squirrel Survey Results Within the Region (continued)
Results
otherwise noted]
preferred b4, c1 and BTNN/BFNN; avoided b2, g1, FONS and
FTNN/FFNN
2.77 in reclaimed
disturbance
2000 ATCO Pipeline mean: 13.8 most common in d3, also common in h1 AXYS (2000b)
Canadian Natural PAW found in poor fen/bog, treed fen, black spruce/jack pine,
2000 incidental observations Canadian Natural (2000)
Project aspen/white spruce and white spruce/black spruce
2000 0.31 preferred BTNN; avoided d1, e1, g1, Shrub and SONS Golder (2000b)
Sands Project
0.23 in Lease 86/17
0.30 in Lease 25/97
2000 OPTI Long Lake Project 1.25 preferred d3; avoided d1, FTNN and shrub OPTI (2000)
2001 Rio Alto Kirby Project 3.70 preferred d2 and g1; avoided FONS and FTNN Rio Alto (2002)
Petro-Canada Meadow
2001 2.50 preferred d2; avoided BTNN and FONS Petro-Canada (2001)
Creek Project
Shell Jackpine Mine – observed in a1, b4, c1, d2, d3, FTNN, g1 and h1; observed
2001 0.47 Golder (2002a)
Phase 1 incidentally in a1, b1, b3, c1, d1, d2 and FONS
observed in b1, b3, d1, d2, d3, e1, e2, e3, h1, BTNN, FTNN,
2001 2.31 STNN, burn and cutblock; avoided d1, g1, BTNN, FTNN, FONS, Canadian Natural (2002)
Project
STNN, SONS, burn and cutblock
Suncor South Tailings observed in d2, e3, FTNN, e2 and BTNN; preference for e3;
2002 3.57 Golder (2003c)
Pond Project avoided BTNN and FTNN
2002 Devon Jackfish Project 9.6 highest track densities in d3,e2 and h1 Devon (2003)
2003 during other surveys on the n/a Golder (2004a)
Thermal Project
LSA
2004 4.57 preferred d2, d3; avoided FTNN, FONS, MONS, WONN MEG (2005a)
preference for mixedwood and white spruce forests
1.94
2004 Suncor Voyageur observed in a1, b1, b3, c1, d2, g1, BTNN, FTNN, FONG, Golder (2005)
1.26
disturbed – vegetated
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-21 Red Squirrel Survey Results Within the Region (continued)
Results
otherwise noted]
Canadian Natural preferred c1, d2, and d3; avoided FTNN, BTNN, FONS, SONS,
2004 to 2005 5.81 Canadian Natural (2006)
Primrose East Expansion and WONN
2005 Devon Jackfish 2 Project 1.0 observed in i1, h1, b4, d3, and b1 Devon (2006)
South Project
2006 Suncor Voyageur South 1.65 observed primarily in d2, d3, g1, e2, h1 Golder (2007a)
Thermal Expansion
2006 4.63 observed primarily in BTNN, d1, FTNN, FONS EnCana (2009)
and 1G
Shell Jackpine Mine 1.68 primarily observed in b1, b4, e3
2007 Expansion and Pierre Golder (2007b)
River Mining areas 4.74 primarily observed in c1, d3, e1, e2, f2, f3

2007 3.2 most observed in d3 North American (2007)
Dehseh
MEG Christina Lake
2008 1.75 preference was shown for g1 MEG (2008)
Regional Project
2008 9.54 observed primarily in d2, FTNN, BTNN, g1 Unpublished data
Update
Total Joslyn Mine
2008 1.32 observed primarily in b3, and g1 Unpublished data
Expansion
2008 EnerPlus Kirby Project 1.71 primarily observed in a1 and disturbed cutline EnerPlus (2008)
2008 West Ells SAGD Project 18.9 primarily in white spruce and mixed coniferous Sunshine (2010)
0.00-7.33 depending on
2008 to 2009 McKay SAGD Pilot Project primarily found in g1 and c1 Southern Pacific (2009)
habitat
observed primarily in b2, b3 and h1, secondarily in b1, c1, d1,
2009 to 2010 6.35 d2, d3, g1, BTNN, FONS, FTNN, SONS, STNN and disturbed- Cenovus (2010)
Project
linear
(a)
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-22 Bat Survey Results Within the Boreal Mixedwood Forests of Alberta
Year Project Activity Results Bat Captures Habitat Reference
99 bats (bat /net-night n/a)
1933 passes (passes/hr n/a) captured and detected primarily
1993 to MSc Research (Lac La (a) little brown (80), northern Crampton and Barclay
Myotis spp. , silver-haired, big in old and mature aspen
1994 Biche, AB) long-eared (1), silver-haired (1998)
brown and hoary bats mixedwood forest
(17) and hoary (1) bats
captured in aspen dominant and
white spruce dominant forest in
56 bats (0.31 /net-night): cutlines, above puddles and
2193 passes (1.6 passes/hr): ponds;
1999 to MSc Research (near little brown (41), northern
little brown, northern long-eared Patriquin (2001)
2000 Peace River, AB) long-eared (13) and silver- detected in aspen dominant,
and silver-haired bats
haired (2) bats white spruce dominant and
mixedwood forests within open
patches and closed canopies
Gulf Surmont 161 passes (35 passes/hr): 30 bats (0.24 /net-hr):
(a)
2000 Supplemental Wildlife Myotis spp. , hoary, big brown little brown (25), hoary (3) and n/a Gulf (2001)
Surveys and silver-haired bats silver-haired (2) bats;
(b)
bat surveys of Central 11.4 passes/hr (total n/a):
(a) Vonhof and Hobson
2000 and Northwestern AB detected Myotis spp. and 0 bats dry mixedwood subregion
(c) (2001)
(Caribou River) larger spp.
(b)
bat surveys of Central 15 passes/hr (total n/a):
(a) 2 bats over 4 nights: Vonhof and Hobson
2000 and Northwestern AB detected Myotis spp. and wet mixedwood subregion
(c) northern long-eared bats (2001)
(Rainbow Lake) larger spp.
11 bats over 6 nights:
bat surveys of Central (b)
39 passes/hr (total n/a): little brown (2), northern long- Vonhof and Hobson
2000 and Northwestern AB (a) (c) wet mixedwood subregion
Myotis spp. and larger spp. eared (6) and big brown (3) (2001)
(Sousa Creek)
bats
10 bats over 7 nights:
bat surveys of Central (b)
19.8 passes/hr (total n/a): little brown (7), northern long- Vonhof and Hobson
2000 and Northwestern AB (a) (c) central mixedwood subregion
Myotis spp. and larger spp. eared (2) and big brown (3) (2001)
(Wabasca River)
bats
little brown bats captured
primarily above water, northern
approximately 270 passes (ca. 36 bats (0.23 bat/net-hr):
long-eared bats captured in Schowalter (2001)
bat surveys in 8.78 passes/hr): little brown (31), northern
2001 (a) cutlines and silver-haired bats Hubbs and Schowalter
Northeastern AB detected Myotis spp. , larger long-eared (3) and silver-
(c) captured above water; (2003)
spp. and hoary bats haired (2) bats
no habitat for echolocation calls
provided
380 passes (15.3 passes/hr):
(a) (c) 4 bats (0.06 bat/net-hr): little captured in e2 cutline; detected
2001 Rio Alto Kirby Project Myotis spp. , larger spp. and Rio Alto (2002)
brown bats primarily in FONG and BTNN
little brown bats
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-22 Bat Survey Results Within the Boreal Mixedwood Forests of Alberta (continued)
captured above water in MONG;
Petro-Canada Wildlife 45 passes (2.2 passes/hr): 1 bat (0.01 bat/net-hr):
2001 (a) (c) detected primarily in d2 as well Petro-Canada (2001)
Surveys Myotis spp. and large spp. silver-haired
as in MONS, MONG and BTNN
captured in b1, d1 and d2
cutlines;
Shell Jackpine Mine – 101 passes (3.9 passes/hr): 6 bats (0.13 bat/net-hr):
(a) (c) detected primarily in e2-cutline
2001 Phase 1 Wildlife Myotis spp. , larger spp. and northern long-eared (5) and Golder (2002a)
and SONS, as well as d1 forest,
Surveys little brown bats little brown (1) bats
b1, d1 and d2 cutlines, FONS
and STNN
323 passes (15.3 passes/hr); 4 bats (0.08 bat/net-hr): little captured in a1-cutline and
Canadian Natural Myotis spp. (a), larger spp.(c), little brown (1), northern long- MONS; detected primarily in
Horizon Project brown and northern long-eared eared (2) and silver-haired (1) MONS, as well as in a1 and e1
bats bats forest and cutlines
captured in d2 and h1 ecosites
28 passes and 2 feeding buzzes 7 captures (0.26 bat/net-hr):
Suncor South Tailings along cutlines; red bat captured
2002 (1.75 passes/hr); Myotis spp.(a), red (1), northern long-eared Golder (2003c)
Pond Project in h1 disturbance and first red
larger spp.(c), little brown bats (4), little brown (2) bats
bat captured in northern Alberta
2.9 passes/hr, 0.5 buzzes per captured in FTNN wetlands type
MEG Energy Christina hour; Myotis spp.(a), big 1 capture (0.04 bat/net-hr); along cutline; passes and
2004 MEG (2005a)
Lake Regional Project brown/silver haired, red and little brown bat feeding buzzes produced within
hoary bats c1, d2, FTNN and WONN
3 captures; northern long-
eared (2), little brown (1) bats
2004 Suncor Voyageur n/a captured in d2 in both LSAs Golder (2005)
5 captures; northern long-
eared (2), little brown (3) bats
432 passes (3129 minutes) and
Canadian Natural
2004 to 21 buzzes; Myotis spp. 3.2 captured in c1 and SONS; most
Primrose East 2 little brown bats Canadian Natural (2006)
2005 passes/hr, red 1.4 passes/hr, activity in c1, d2, and d1
Expansion
hoary 1.0 passes/hr
Devon Jackfish 2
2005 n/a 2 captures; little brown bats captured along road Devon (2006)
Project
Golder Associates
December 2010
13.7 passes/hr and 0.4
buzzes/hr (7 hours); big
brown/silver-haired, high-
frequency bat, hoary bat, little 1 red bat, 1 silver-haired bat,
2006 to Suncor Voyageur
brown bat, little brown/red bat, 8 northern long-eared bats, 3 captured in d1-dist, d2-dist Golder (2007a)
2007 South
little brown/northern long-eared little brown bats
bat, low-frequency bat, northern
long-eared bat and silver-haired
bat
Cenovus Christina 15 passes (3.8 passes/hr), 0 7 captures (0.20 bat/net-hr): 1
Lake Thermal buzzes; high frequency, big red bat, 2 silver-haired bats, 2
2006 captured in d2 EnCana (2009)
Expansion Project, brown/silver-haired, little brown, northern long-eared bats, 2
Phases 1E, 1F and 1G and red bats detected little brown bats
570 passes, 27.2 passes/hour
and 1.0 buzzes/hour; big
brown/silver-haired, red bat,
hoary bat, hoary/big brown/silver
haired, little brown, northern 31 captures (0.64 bat/net-hr):
long-eared, and high-frequency two silver-haired bat, 24
Shell Jackpine Mine bats detected northern long-eared bats and majority of the bats captured in
2007 Expansion and Pierre five little brown bats b1, d2, b2; most activity in Golder (2007b)
River Mining areas 461 passes, 15.9 passes/hour 38 captures (0.26 bat/net-hr): BTNN, FTNN, WONN and d2
and 0.4 buzzes/hour; big 26 northern long-eared bats
brown/silver-haired, red bat, and 12 little brown bats
hoary bat, hoary/big brown/silver
haired, little brown, northern
long-eared, and high-frequency
bats detected
Eptesicus fuscus/ Lasionycteris
StatoilHydro Kai Kos noctivigans 5 recordings
2007 none not recorded North American (2007)
Dehseh Myotis lucifugus 12 recordings
Lasiurus borealis 1 recording
58 passes, 15.1 passes/hour
and 1.0 feeding buzzes/hour;
20 captures (0.83 bat/net-hr):
big brown/silver-haired, red bat,
Suncor Millennium one hoary bat, three silver- captured in d1, d2; most activity
2007 hoary/big brown/silver haired, Golder (2007b)
MD9 haired bats and 16 northern in d2, e2
little brown, northern long-eared
long-eared bats
and high-frequency bats
detected
Golder Associates
December 2010
15.2 passes/hour and 2.9
MEG Christina Lake buzzes/hour (29.8) myotis bat
2008 one little brown bat captured in FTNN MEG (2008)
Regional Project species, big brown/silver-haired,
red bat, and hoary bat
high frequency bats 199.4
passes/hour, low frequency bats
three little brown bats, 18
1.0 passes/hour, and high
Total Joslyn Mine northern long-eared bat, one captured in d1-dist, d2-dist, and
2008 frequency bats 16.7 buzzes/ Unpublished data
Expansion red bat, and one silver-haired d3-dist
hour (12 hours) myotis species
bat,
or red bat and big brown bat or
silver-haired were detected
21 passes and no feeding
buzzes (7.4 passes/hr); big
brown/silver-haired, northern
captured in d1-dist, and burned
long-eared, red, high and low
2008 EnerPlus Kirby Project three little brown bats b1 cutline; most activity in b1 EnerPlus (2008)
frequency, northern long-
(burn) and d1
eared/little brown, red/little
brown and silver-haired bats
detected
57 passes and 22 feeding
buzzes (13.2 passes/hr, and 5.1 eight captures (0.1 bats per
feeding buzzes/hr); mist-net hour)
Cenovus Narrows Lake d1, d2, f2, h1 (all in disturbed
2008 big brown/silver-haired, silver- Cenovus (2010)
Project Four little brown (4) cutline)
haired, high and low frequency,
little brown, northern long- Four silver-haired (4)
eared/little brown bats detected
1,245 passes and 92 feeding
buzzes (3.3 passes/hr and 0.2
87 captures (0.23 bats per
feeding buzzes/hr);
mist-net hour) captured along cutlines in b1,
2008 to Dover Commercial big brown/silver-haired, silver-
43 little brown bats, 19 b2, b4, d1, d2, d3, e2; most Present Study
2010 Project haired, hoary, red, little brown,
northern long-eared bats, and activity in b3 and d2
northern-long-eared, high and
25 silver-haired bats
low frequency, northern long-
eared/little brown bats detected
(a)
Myotis species were difficult to differentiate by echolocation calls; therefore, they were sometimes grouped as Myotis spp.
(b)
Numbers were extrapolated from figures and represent approximate mean values.
(c)
Larger bat species could not be differentiated on basis of echolocation calls; therefore, they were grouped as larger spp. This group may include silver-haired and big
brown bats.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-23 Small Mammal Survey Results Within the Region

Abundance
Small
[# captures/100 trap
Mammal Year Project Habitat Reference
nights unless
Species
otherwise noted]
1979 Syncrude abundant n/a Westworth (1979)
Michielson and Radvanyi
1979 Syncrude present n/a
(1979)
margins of moist fields, bogs, marshes and
1997 Shell Muskeg River Mine Project 4 to 17 moist or dry woods, including mixedwood and Golder (1997b)
upland coniferous
masked shrew
1980 AOSERP common aspen and willow habitats Green (1980)
Alberta Environment
1995 Centre/Canadian Forest Service. n/a aspen mixedwood Stelfox (1995)
Alberta Land and Forest Service
Gulf Surmont In-Situ Oil Sands
2000 3 b2,d1,d3 Gulf (2001)
Project
Alberta Environment
1995 Centre/Canadian Forest Service. n/a aspen mixedwood Stelfox (1995)
dusky shrew Alberta Land and Forest Service
2000 2 e3 and h1 Gulf (2001)
Project
water shrew 1979 Syncrude common wet margins of lakes, streams, and muskegs Westworth (1979)
1979 Syncrude scarce n/a Westworth (1979)
1997 Shell Muskeg River Mine Project n/a bogs, marshes and grassy clearings Golder (1997b)
Alberta Environment
arctic shrew 1995 Centre/Canadian Forest Service, n/a aspen mixedwood Stelfox (1995)
Alberta Land and Forest Service
2000 1 FONS Gulf (2001)
Project
1979 Syncrude common n/a Westworth (1979)
1980 AEOSERP common aspen and willow habitats Green (1980)
pygmy shrew wooded areas (mixedwood), bogs, wet
1997 Shell Muskeg River Mine Project uncommon Golder (1997b)
meadows and clearings within forests
2000 4 d1, FONS and FONG Gulf (2001)
Project
1997 Shell Muskeg River Mine Project n/a clearings, forest edges and disturbed areas Golder (1997b)
least 1993 University of Alberta n/a aspen mixedwood Moses and Boutin (2001)
chipmunk 2004 to Canadian Natural Primrose East
no observations n/a Canadian Natural (2006)
2005 Expansion
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-23 Small Mammal Survey Results Within the Region (Continued)
Abundance
Small
nights unless
Species
otherwise noted]
1979 Syncrude 9.3 to 19.1 n/a Westworth (1979)
(a) forest and shrub-dominant habitats, balsam
1980 AOSERP abundant Green (1980)
poplar, aspen and jack pine communities
red-backed prefer balsam poplar, mixedwood and
1984 Syncrude Mildred Lake n/a Syncrude (1984)
vole tamarack forest
1993 University of Alberta n/a aspen mixedwood Moses and Boutin (2001)
disturbed areas, mixedwood, riparian, upland
1997 Shell Muskeg River Mine Project n/a Golder (1997b)
coniferous forests and wetlands
deciduous, upland coniferous, mixedwood
2000 OPTI Long Lake Project n/a OPTI (2000)
forests, riparian areas and wetlands
Gulf Surmont In-Situ Oil Sands b2,b3,d1,d2,d3, e1, e3, h1, BTNN, FONS and
2000 38 Gulf (2001)
Project FONG
2002 1 e2 Golder (2003b)
Project
2004 1.3/trap night n/a Golder (2004b)
Report
no observations n/a
heather vole 5 captured total observed in b1, b3, d2, FTNN
1979 Syncrude common-abundant n/a Westworth (1979)
forest and shrub-dominant habitats. Moist
1979 AOSERP n/a Green (1979)
habitats with dense grass or sedge cover
prefers successional areas, willow shrub and
tamarack forests
Fort McKay Environment
1997 Alsands Region n/a n/a
Services Ltd. (1997)
clearings, wet meadows with grass cover,
1997 Shell Muskeg River Mine Project n/a disturbed areas, mixedwood, riparian, upland Golder (1997b)
conifer forest and wetlands
2000 OPTI Long Lake Project n/a riparian OPTI (2000)
meadow vole 2000 5 b2,d1, h1 and FONS Gulf (2001)
Project
2002 7 shrubby grassland Golder (2003b)
Project
2004 2.5/trap night n/a Golder (2004b)
Report
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-23 Small Mammal Survey Results Within the Region (Continued)
Abundance
Small
nights unless
Species
otherwise noted]
1979 Syncrude abundant n/a Westworth (1979)
Michielson and Radvanyi
1979 Syncrude abundant n/a
(1979)
1979 AOSERP n/a grasslands and early successional habitats Green (1979)
forest and shrub-dominant habitats and
1980 AEOSERP n/a Green (1980)
recently disturbed areas (e.g. cutblocks)
most abundant in aspen, balsam poplar or
mixedwood forests
deer mouse deciduous, coniferous and mixedwood forests
2000 OPTI Long Lake Project n/a OPTI (2000)
and riparian
2000 16 a1,b2, b3, d1 and d2 Gulf (2001)
Project
e1, e2, deciduous-willow, deciduous misc.,
2002 38 mixedwood grassland, mixedwood willow, Golder (2003b)
Project
shrubby grassland
2004 30/trap night n/a Golder (2004b)
Report
meadow grasslands, riparian meadows, clearings,
1997 Shell Muskeg River Mine Project n/a Golder (1997b)
jumping forest edges
mouse 2000 OPTI Long Lake Project n/a riparian OPTI (2000)
wet forested areas, bogs, riparian and
northern bog 1997 Shell Muskeg River Mine Project n/a Golder (1997b)
wetlands
lemming
2000 OPTI Long Lake Project n/a wetlands OPTI (2000)
2004 to Canadian Natural Primrose East
flying squirrel no observations n/a Canadian Natural (2006)
2005 Expansion
mice and
voles 2005 Devon Jackfish 2 Project n/a observed in d3, i1, j2, c1, and b1 Devon (2006)
combined
(a)
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-24 Owl Survey Results Within the Region

Species
[Abundance]
boreal owl (7) mixedwood, trembling aspen
1997 Shell Muskeg River Mine great horned owl (1) black spruce stand Golder (1997a)
Incidentals: great gray owl (4) unknown
Steepbank River Valley, great gray owl (1) STNN
1998 Shipyard Lake, and Lease 25 Incidentals: great gray owl (1) a1 Golder (1998b)
and 29 Uplands northern hawk owl (1) BTNN
great gray owl (1) STNN
1998 Suncor Project Millennium Golder (1998a)
Incidentals: great gray owl (2) riparian area, a1
great horned owl (7) FONS, FTNN, d2, g1, h1
great gray owl (1) FONS
boreal owl (5) FTNN, g1
barred owl (4) FTNN, d2, g1
2000 Firebag Project Incidentals (1998): Golder (2000f)
great gray owl (n/a) e1
great horned owl (n/a) f2, BTNN
northern hawk owl (n/a) FTNN, c1
unknown owl (n/a) FTNN, BTNN, e1
shrubby fen, poplar/aspen, aspen/white
great-horned owl (10)
spruce, white spruce, poor fen/bog, treed fen
northern-hawk owl (2) aspen/white spruce, poplar/aspen
2000 Canadian Natural PAW Project boreal owls (3) aspen/white spruce, white spruce/jack pine Canadian Natural (2000)
short-eared owl (1) shrubby fen
northern saw-whet owl (1) poplar/aspen
barred owl (1) white spruce
great horned owl (16) b3, d1, d2, g1, BTNN, SONS
great gray owl (4) b2, b3, BTNN
boreal owl (10) g1, BTNN
barred owl (15) b2, b3, d1, d2
barred owl (14) b1, b2, d1, d2, h1, i1, j1
boreal owl (1) i1
great horned owl (25) b1, b2, d1, d2, e1, i1, j1
Gulf-Surmont In-Situ Oil Sands long-eared owl (1) k3
2001 Gulf (2001)
Project Incidentals:
barred owl (27) a1, b1, b2, c1, d1, e1, h1, i1, j1
boreal owl (6) d2, i1, j1, k1
great gray owl (7) d1, e1, i1, k2, k3
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-24 Owl Survey Results Within the Region (continued)

Species
[Abundance]
great horned owl (34) b1, b2, d1, d2, e1, i1, j1
2001 Gulf-Surmont In-Situ Oil Sands
long-eared owl (2) f1, k3 Gulf (2001)
(continued) Project (continued)
northern saw-whet owl (2) c1, d1
Albian Sands Muskeg River great horned owl (1) b4
Westworth Associates
2001 Mine Project Wildlife Incidentals: great horned owl (5) shrubland, d1, unknown
(2001)
Assessment great gray owl (1) j2
PanCanadian Christina Lake great horned owl (5) f3, FTNN
2001 Thermal Project Wildlife Golder (2000c)
Monitoring boreal owl (3) e3, c1/g1, FTNN
great horned owl (10) b1, d2, g1, FTNN
boreal owl (2) b1, d2
great horned owl (4) b1, g1, SONS
Petro-Canada Meadow Creek great gray owl (1) d2
2001 Petro-Canada (2001)
Project boreal owl (2) SONS, FONG
barred owl (5) b3, c1, d2, g1, FTNN
great horned owl (5) d2, BTNN, FTNN
2001 Shell Jackpine Mine – Phase 1 Golder (2002a)
great gray owl (1) BTNN
great horned owl (24) d2, d3, BTNN, FTNN, cutblock
2001 boreal owl (14) a1, d2, BTNN, FTNN Canadian Natural (2002)
Project
barred owl ( 8) b1, d2, e3
boreal owl (11) d1, d2, h1, FONS, FTNN, STNN
barred owl (2) d3, SONS
2002 great gray owl (1) BTNN Golder (2003c)
Project
great horned owl (1) b3
northern saw-whet owl STNN
boreal owl (19)
northern saw-whet owl (4)
2002 Devon Jackfish Project great horned owl (4) not reported Devon (2003)
barred owl (1)
Incidentals: great gray owl (1)
boreal owl (4)
Incidentals: BTNN,b2 and g1
2003 boreal owl (3) Golder (2004a)
Thermal Project BTNN,FTNN,d2,e2 and g1
great gray owl (2)
great-horned owl (3)
Golder Associates
December 2010

Species
[Abundance]
boreal owl (9) c1, burn, b1, d1, FTNN, FONS, disturbed
MEG Energy Christina Lake barred owl (5) a1, burn, BTNN, d1, STNN
2004 MEG (2005a)
Regional Project great gray owl (8) BTNN, FONS, a1, c1, burn
great horned owl (3) c1, d2, burn
aspen-white spruce; black spruce; white
boreal owl (13) spruce – aspen; black spruce- birch and
Suncor Monitoring Five Year black spruce-aspen
2004 Golder (2004b)
Report
great gray owl (3) black spruce and black spruce - tamarack
barred owl (1) cutblock area – aspen-white spruce
boreal owl (4) aspen-white spruce
2004 Suncor Voyageur great horned owl (1) d1 Golder (2005)
no observations n/a
boreal owl (14) a1, b1, FTNN, FONS/BTNN, MONG, h1
2004 to Canadian Natural Primrose
great gray owl (4) A1, FONG, FONS/BTNN Canadian Natural (2006)
2005 East Expansion
northern saw-whet owl (1) h1
Incidentals:
barred owl (2)
2005 Devon Jackfish 2 Project n/a Devon (2006)
great grey owl (3)
short-eared owl (1)
d1, d2, BTNN, FTNN, SONS, STNN,
boreal owl (18)
industrial, cutblock
great gray owl (4) d1, d2, FTNN, cutblock
barred owl (1) d3
a1, b1, BTNN, d1, e1, FONS, FOPN, FTNN,
boreal owl (75)
g1, h1, MONG, road, STNN
barred owl (5) BTNN, FTNN, g1
Cenovus Christina Lake great gray owl (18) a1, BTNN, c1, FONS, FTNN, STNN
2006 Thermal Expansion Project, EnCana (2009)
Phases 1E, 1F and 1G great horned owl (28) a1, BTNN, c1, d1, FONS, FOPN, FTNN, g1,
h1, MONG, SONS, STNN
long-eared owl (3) a1, b1, MONG
northern saw-whet (4) h1, FTNN
a1, b2, b3, BTNN, c1, d1, d3, e2, FONS,
boreal owl (29, 31)
FTNN, g1, SONS, dist
Shell Jackpine Mine barred owl (0, 14) a1, d2, d3
2007 Expansion and Pierre River great gray owl (2, 9) a1, d2, e2, FTNN, g1, dist Golder (2007b)
Mining areas great horned owl (8, 6) a1, BTNN, d2, FTNN
long-eared owl (0, 2) a1, FTNN
northern saw-whet (2, 2) a1, dist
Golder Associates
December 2010

Species
[Abundance]
barred owl (5) c1, d1
boreal owl (1) c1
2007 StatoilHydro Kai Kos Dehseh great gray owl (1)l clear cut North American (2007)
great horned owl (2) b2
northern pygmy owl (3) clear cut, d1, g1
2007 Suncor Millennium MD9 boreal owl (27) d1, d2, d3, e3, BTNN, FTNN, disturbed Golder (2007b)
barred owl (5) a1, d1, BTNN, STNN, burn
MEG Christina Lake Regional boreal owl (9) b1, c1, d1, FTNN, FONS, burn, disturbed
2008 MEG (2008)
Project great grey owl (8) a1, c1, BTNN, FONS, burn
great horned owl (3) c1, d2, burn
barred owl (4) b1, d1,
boreal owl (24) a1, d1, d2, d3, BONS, FTNN
great grey owl (2) d1
great horned owl (30) d1, f2, BONS, BTNN, FONG, FONS, FTNN
northern saw-whet owl (2) FTNN
boreal owl (3) a1, d1, d2, d3, BONS, FTNN
2008 EnerPlus Kirby Project boreal owl (3) burned a1, burned g1, BTNN EnerPlus 2008
barred owl (2) d2
boreal owl (15) a1, g1, BTNN, FONS, FTNN
2008 Cenovus Narrows Lake Project great gray owl (1) FONS Cenovus (2010)
great horned owl (1) FONS
northern saw-whet owl (1) FONS
Incidental observations:
2008 to MacKay River Commercial deciduous
great horned owl (1) AOSC (2009)
2009 Project coniferous, deciduous
barred owl (2)
great horned owl (2)

2008 West Ells SAGD Project boreal owl (5) n/a Sunshine (2010)
barred owl (1)
Golder Associates
December 2010

Species
[Abundance]
boreal owl (21) Primarily BTNN and c1

2008 to barred owl (4) d1, d2
Dover Commercial Project Present Study
2010 great greay owl (3) n/a
great horned owl (8) c1, d2, g1, FONS, FTNN
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-25 Raptor Survey Results Within the Region

Species
[Abundance]
broad-winged hawk (1) riparian deciduous forest
northern goshawk (1) over Athabasca river
northern harrier (1) near Athabasca river
bald eagle (1) east bank of Athabasca River
bald eagle nest (1) aspen grove
unidentified accipiter (1) near Beaver River
Incidentals: Westworth, Brusnyk and
1996 Suncor Steepbank Mine red-tailed hawk (1) open sb-Labrador tea
Associates (1996b)
northern harrier (1) closed shrub complex habitat
sharp-shinned hawk (2) adjacent to aspen cutblock
American kestrel (1) adjacent to aspen cutblock
bald eagle (3) near Athabasca River
sharp-shinned hawk (2) east of wetlands 2
broad-winged hawk (1) east side of Ruth Lake
northern harrier (1) north end of reservoir
Incidentals:
1997 Shell Muskeg River Mine unknown Golder (1997b)
red-tailed hawk (undisclosed number)
bald eagle (1) unknown
Suncor Project red-tailed hawk (1) lake area
1998 Golder (1998a)
Millennium Incidentals:
red-tailed hawk (undisclosed number) unknown
Incidentals:
1998 Mobil Lease 36 unknown Golder (1999b)
bald eagle (2)
Incidentals (1998):
northern harrier (n/a) FONS
2000 Firebag Project rough-legged hawk (n/a) BTNN Golder (2000f)
Incidentals (1999):
northern harrier (2) BTNN; FONS
Incidentals:
goshawks marsh, treed fens
2000 red-tailed hawk jack pine/aspen, shrubby swamp Canadian Natural (2000)
Project
northern harrier shrubby swamp, deep water
ospreys near a pond
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-25 Raptor Survey Results Within the Region (continued)

Species
[Abundance]
Incidentals:
broad-winged hawk (2) mixedwood
Cooper’s hawk (1) mixedwood
northern goshawk (9) mixedwood, ponds, Gregoire River, Sb bog,
2000 OPTI Long Lake Project willow, deciduous OPTI (2000)
northern harrier (6) fen, mixedwood, ponds
osprey (2) Canoe Lake, Kiskatinaw Lake
red-tailed hawk (2) Gregoire River, fen
sharp-shinned hawk (1) Dogwood (e1)
northern goshawk (10) d2, e2, h1, e1, d1
Gulf-Surmont In-Situ Oil Incidentals:
2001 Gulf (2001)
Sands Project Cooper’s hawk (1) d1
Sharp-shinned hawk (2) d1, k2
northern harrier (3) j2
sharp-shinned hawk (9) e2, d1, Lt-Sb
Albian Sands Muskeg northern goshawk (3) d1
Westworth Associates
2001 River Mine Project broad-winged hawk (11) d1, d2, f1
(2001)
Wildlife Assessment red-tailed hawk (15) b4, d1, b1
American kestrel (9) k2
merlin (5) b3
broad-winged hawk (1) FTNN
2001 Lake Thermal Project Golder (2000c)
unknown species (1) f3
Wildlife Monitoring
Firebag Project
2001 northern harrier (3) b3, j1, b4 Golder (2000f)
Supplemental
red-tailed hawk (3) b1, FTNN
northern harrier (1) FTNN
2001 Rio Alto Kirby Project sharp-shinned hawk (1) FTNN Rio Alto (2002)
Swainson’s hawk (2) c1
Unknown (1) d1
northern goshawk (2) g1, BTNN
Petro-Canada Meadow
2001 northern harrier (1) c1 Petro-Canada (2001)
Creek Project
unknown (3) BTNN, FTNN
Shell Jackpine Mine – northern goshawk (1) STNN
2001 Golder (2002a)
Phase 1 American kestrel (1) FONS
Canadian Natural Horizon bald eagle (2) MONG
Project osprey (2) MONG
American kestrel (1) clearcut
2002 broad-winged hawk (1) clearcut Golder (2003c)
Pond Project
northern harrier (1) STNN
Golder Associates
December 2010

Species
[Abundance]
American kestrel (1) clearcut
2002 broad-winged hawk (1) clearcut Golder (2003b)
Pond Project
northern harrier (1) STNN
Cooper’s hawk (1)
Incidentals:
2003 northern harrier(1) d2 Golder (2004a)
Thermal Project
red-tailed hawk(1)
sharp-shinned hawk(1)
sharp-shinned hawk (1) BTNN
northern goshawk (1) d2
merlin (1) FTNN
MEG Energy Christina Incidentals:
2004 MEG (2005a)
Lake Regional Project bald eagle (5)
northern harrier (2)
osprey (2)
American kestrel (1)
American kestrel (1) FTNN
sharp-shinned hawk (2) d2, BTNN
unknown (1) FTNN
no observations n/a
northern goshawk (1) d2
Incidentals:
2004 to Canadian Natural
sharp-shinned hawks (2) FTNN Canadian Natural (2006)
2005 Primrose East Expansion
northern harrier (1) FONS
unknown (1) n/a
Cooper’s hawk (2)
northern goshawk (2)
sharp-shinned hawks (2)
red-tailed hawk (2)
northern harrier (7)
2005 Devon Jackfish 2 Project n/a Devon (2006)
broad-winged hawk (1)
peregrine falcon (1)
Incidentals:
northern goshawk (2)
broad-winged hawk (2)
Golder Associates
December 2010

Species
[Abundance]
northern harrier (8) bog, fen, coniferous
northern goshawk (7) coniferous deciduous, mixed-wood
2008 to MacKay River broad-winged hawk (2) deciduous
AOSC (2009)
2009 Commercial Project red-tailed hawk (4) bog, fen coniferous
American kestrel (3) coniferous, deciduous
Merlin (1) fen
red-tailed hawk (1)
2008 West Ells SAGD Project n/a Sunshine (2010)
sharp shinned hawk (1)
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-26 Grouse Survey Results Within the Region

Results
(a) Bovar-Concord
1995 Solv-Ex 3.04 most in aspen and aspen-white spruce
preferred wetlands shrub complex; avoided closed
1997 Shell Muskeg River Mine 1.71 mixedwood, closed mixed coniferous and riparian shrub Golder (1997a,b)
dominant
January: preferred FTNN; avoided d1, d3, h1, BTNN, shrub
0.36 January
1997 Suncor Winter Wildlife and WONN Golder (1998a,b)
0.99 in February
February: preferred FTNN; avoided a1, d3, d2, d1 and BTNN
0.19 in January
1997 Suncor Winter Wildlife 0.30 in February did not show a landscape preference Golder (1998a,b)
0.05 in March
most in white spruce-aspen and aspen-white spruce URSUS and Komex
1997 Mobil Lease 36 0.36 (a)
mixedwood forests (1997)
preferred FONS and FTNN/FFNN; avoided a1, b1, b2, b4,
c1, d1, d2, d3 and g1
1.76 in reclaimed
1998 to 1999 Suncor Wildlife Monitoring 2.06 in riparian area beside not determined Golder (1999a)
disturbance
2000 ATCO Pipeline mean: 3.1 most common in d3, also common in FTNN AXYS (2000b)
TrueNorth Fort Hills Oil preferred STNN and SONS; avoided a1, b1, d1, d2, d3, e1,
2000 0.07 Golder (2000b)
Sands Project e2, g1, Shrub and BTNN
4.55 in Lease 86/17
0.63 in Lease 25/97
most tracks observed in the d2 and h1 ecosite
2001 Rio Alto Kirby Project 0.17 tracks observed in d2 and FTNN Rio Alto (2002)
Petro-Canada Meadow most tracks observed in the d2 and b1 ecosite
2001 0.34 Petro-Canada (2001)
Creek Project phase/wetlands types
Canadian Natural Horizon observed mostly in d2, followed by d1, b3, d3, e3, STNN and
2001 0.33 (upland game birds) Canadian Natural (2002)
Project burn
2001 Jackpine Mine – Phase 1 0.19 (upland game birds) observed in b3, d2, d3 Golder (2002a)
2002 0.38 (upland game birds) observed in d2, FONS, cutblock Golder (2003c)
Pond
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-26 Grouse Survey Results Within the Region (continued)

Results
Cenovus-Christina Lake 1 ruffed grouse and 4 spruce
2003 n/a Golder (2004a)
Thermal Project groused observed incidentally
2004 0.60 observed in a1, b2, d1, d2, g1, FONS, FTNN MEG (2005a)
0.46 preferences not established
0.14 no habitat preference
Canadian Natural
2004 to 2005 0.46 preference for c1, avoidance of WONN Canadian Natural (2006)
Primrose East Expansion
South Project
2006 Suncor Voyageur South 0.83 primarily observed in d2, h1, FONS Golder (2007a)
Thermal Expansion
2006 0.39 primarily observed in FTNN, g1 EnCana (2009)
and 1G
Shell Jackpine Mine 0.76 primarily observed in a1, b3, d2, d3
2007 Expansion and Pierre Golder (2007b)
River Mining areas 1.68 primarily observed in d1, SONS
MEG Christina Lake
2008 0.50 primarily observed in a1, b1, b3, FONS and reclaimed MEG (2008)
Regional Project
Total Joslyn Mine
2008 0.58 primarily observed in b1, b4, d1, and f1 Unpublished data
Expansion
2008 EnerPlus Kirby Project 1.44 primarily observed in BONS EnerPlus (2008)
MacKay River Commercial
2007 to 2008 0.41 primarily observed in e3, j2, and b3 AOSC (2009)
Project
2008 West Ells SAGD Project 1 primarily in deciduous dominated mixedwood Sunshine (2010)
0.00-5.43 (depending on
2008 to 2009 McKay SAGD Pilot Project primarily in h1 Southern Pacific (2009)
habitat)
primarily observed in a1 and d2, secondarily observed in b1,
2009 to 2010 0.72 b3, c1, d1, d3, g1, BTNN, FONS, FTNN, STNN and Cenovus (2010)
Project
disturbed-linear
(a)
Not statistically significant.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-27 Breeding Bird Survey Results Within the Region

Richness Diversity Listed Species
Year Project Reference
[range] [range] [Observed Only]
(a) blackburnian warbler
1997 Shell Muskeg River Mine 6.30 to 16.0 1.50 to 2.50 Golder (1997b)
Cape May warbler
bay-breasted warbler
blackburnian warbler
black-throated green warbler
1998 Suncor Project Millennium 2.17 to 4.40 0.67 to 1.36 Suncor (1998)
Canada warbler
Cape May warblers
western tanager
1998 Firebag Project 9.1 to 9.3 1.5 to 1.8 blackburnian, Canada and Cape May warblers Suncor (2000)
2000 OPTI Long Lake Project 1.56 to 3.13 0.35 to 0.97 Cape May warbler OPTI (2000)
western tanager
2000 Canadian Natural PAW Project 1.60 to 2.80 0.30 to 0.90 Canadian Natural (2000)
Cape May warbler
TrueNorth Fort Hills Oil Sands Cape May warbler
2000 n/a n/a TrueNorth (2001)
Project bay-breasted warbler
bay-breasted, black-throated green, Canada and
Gulf Surmont In-situ Oil Sands
2001 47 total richness 1.00 to 17.0 Cape May warblers Gulf (2001)
Project
western tanager
2001 Firebag Project Supplemental 1.00 to 4.50 0.90 to 3.05 none observed Golder (2000f)
Canadian Natural PAW Project bay-breasted, black-throated green, Canada and
2001 2.70 to 4.60 1.30 to 3.30 Canadian Natural (2000)
Supplemental Cape May warblers
2001 Rio Alto Kirby Project 1.00 to 5.00 0.00 to 3.60 western tanager Rio Alto (2002)
Petro-Canada Meadow Creek Cape May warbler
2001 1.00 to 4.00 0.00 to 2.51 Petro-Canada (2001)
Project western tanager
bay-breasted
Shell Jackpine Mine – Phase 1 Canada warbler, and
2001 1.00 to 7.00 0.00 to 6.15 Golder (2002a)
Project Cape May warblers
western tanager
bay-breasted
black-throated green
Canadian Natural Horizon Canada and Cape May warblers
2001 2.17 to 6.33 0.75 to 5.12 Canadian Natural (2002)
Project black-backed woodpecker
pileated woodpecker
western tanager
black-throated green warbler
horned grebe
Suncor 86/17 Wildlife
2002 6.33 to 7.57 5.72 to 7.42 great blue heron Golder (2003b)
Monitoring
sandhill crane
western tanager
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-27 Breeding Bird Survey Results Within the Region (continued)
pileated woodpecker
2002 Suncor South Tailings Pond 2.14 to 2.72 0.89 to 1.41 Golder (2003c)
Cape May warbler
western tanager
black tern
pileated woodpecker
Cape May warbler
2002 Devon Jackfish Project 48 total richness 1.00 to 3.80 black-throated green warbler Devon (2003)
Canada warbler
western tanager
pileated wood-pecker
Cenovus Christina Lake 2.8 to 5.5
2003 39 total richness short-billed dowitcher Golder (2004a)
Thermal Project mean diversities)
Cape May warbler
MEG Energy Christina Lake 1.84 to 1.88 0.65 to 0.93
2004 none observed MEG (2005a)
Regional Project (mean richness) (mean diversities)
horned grebe
great blue heron
5.42 to 6.58 4.13 to 5.55 sandhill crane
Suncor Monitoring Five Year (2002) (2002)
2004 common nighthawk Golder (2004b)
Report 4.14 to 5.08 2.89 to 3.95
(2003) pileated woodpecker
(2003)
Canada warbler
western tanager
western tanager
pileated woodpecker
1.31 to 2.05 2.38 to 3.12 Canada warbler
1.65 to 2.83 3.07 to 4.25 Cape May warbler
blackburnian warbler
Canadian Natural Primrose
2004 to 2005 0.5 to 3.00 0.25 to 1.43 pileated woodpecker Canadian Natural (2006)
East Expansion
pileated woodpecker
black-backed woodpecker
2005 Devon Jackfish 2 Project 64 total richness 2.6 to 4.3 bay-breasted warbler Devon (2006)
Cape May warbler
western tanager
Golder Associates
December 2010
black tern
pileated woodpecker
OPTI/Nexen Long Lake South Cape May warbler
2005 to 2006 71 total richness 4.8 to 18.4 OPTI/Nexen (2006)
Project bay-breasted warbler
Canada warbler
western tanager
Canada warbler
Cape May warbler
2006 Suncor Voyageur South 1.5 to 8.0 0.3 to 7.3 Golder (2007a)
common yellowthroat
western tanager
eastern phoebe
Cenovus Christina Lake brown creeper
2006 Thermal Expansion Project, 0.5 to 8.0 0.0 to 7.7 common yellowthroat EnCana (2009)
Phases 1E, 1F and 1G least flycatcher
northern hawk-owl
bay-breasted warbler, brown creeper, Canada
Shell Jackpine Mine warbler, Cape May warbler, common yellowthroat,
2007 Expansion and Pierre River 1.3 to 5.8 0.3 to 4.7 great gray owl, least flycatcher, rusty blackbird and Golder (2007b)
Mining areas western tanager, yellow-bellied flycatcher, black tern,
black-backed woodpecker
2007 Suncor Millennium MD9 1.0 to 5.0 0.15 to 4.03 bay-breasted warbler, Cape May warbler Golder (2008)
2008 1.0 to 2.35 0.23 to 1.16 brown creeper and least flycatcher MEG (2008)
Project
bay-breasted warbler, black-throated green warbler,
84.9 to 489.2
2008 Total Joslyn Mine Expansion 2.0 to 15.8 Canada warbler, Cape May warbler, common Unpublished data
territories/40 ha
yellowthroat, least flycatcher, and western tananger
2008 EnerPlus Kirby Project 1.0 to 4.0 0.30 to 2.09 common yellowthroat, and common nighthawk EnerPlus (2008)
least flycatcher (1) (FTNN)
Cenovus Narrows Lake Canada warbler (1) (d2)
2008 to 2009 0 to 2.8 0 to 1.4 Cenovus (2010)
Project bay-breasted warbler (1) (g1)
common yellowthroat (1) (FONS)
Golder Associates
December 2010
olive-sided flycatcher (10)
least flycatcher (19)
insufficient brown creeper (4)
MacKay River Commercial 54 species
2008 information on cape may warbler (19) AOSC (2009)
Project detected
index used common yellowthroat (44)
bay-breasted warbler (8)
western tanger (35)
broad-winged hawk
0.45-0.95
40 species cape may warbler
2008 West Ells SAGD Project (Shannon Sunshine (2010)
detected pileated woodpecker
diversity index)
sora
western tanger
1.77-2.54
34 species Cape May warbler (10)
2008 McKay SAGD Pilot Project (Shannon Southern Pacific (2009)
detected common yellowthroat (2)
diversity index)
western tanger (20)
Cape May warbler (28)
common yellowthroat (16)
0.9-6.4
least flycatcher (13)
2008 to 2010 Dover Commercial Project (63 species 0.9-8.5 Present Study
western tanager (8)
detected)
olive-sided flycatcher (3)
brown creeper (30
black-throated green warbler (1)
(a)
Methods used were different than those from the present study.
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-28 Marsh Bird Survey Results Within the Region

Year Project Species Habitat Reference
2002 No incidental observations n/a Golder (2003b)
Project
Cenovus – Christina Lake
2003 No incidental observations n/a Golder (2004a)
Thermal Project
American bittern (1) visual
MEG Energy Christina Lake Lake shore
2004 incidental MEG (2005a)
Regional Project
sora (1) audio incidental WONN
(North Steepbank – 1 sora
incidental)
2004 Suncor Voyageur Habitats unknown Golder (2005)
(North Steepbank – 1 American
bittern incidental)
disturbed cutline/ ditch (1)
American bittern (1) + 2 incidentals
2 audio incidentals = d2 and lake/pond
2006 Suncor Voyageur South Lakes/ponds (16), near creek (4), cutlines/ditches (6) [Alternate Golder (2007a)
breakdown = Disturbed (12), SONS (5), WONN (3), MONG (2),
sora (26) + 4 incidentals
d1, FONG, FONS, FTNN each had 1 observation]
4 audio incidentals = ditch, standing water, lake/pond
Cenovus Christina Lake American bittern (1) FTNN (standing water)
2006 Thermal Expansion Project, MONS (3), MONG (2), FTNN (2), d3, e2 and STNN each had 1 EnCana (2009)
Phases 1E, 1F and 1G sora (10) + 1 incidental
occurrence.
American Bittern (6 – PRMA LSA) SONS (2), FONG, FTNN, MONG, f2 (all 1 each)
pied-billed grebe (2 – PRMA LSA) MONG (2)
Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion PRMA LSA = MONG (7), SONS (5), FTNN (2), h1 (2), b2,
2007 sora (36 Total) Golder (2007b)
and Pierre River Mining areas FONG, STNN and Cutline all had 1 occurrence.
(PRMA LSA=20)
JEMA LSA = unknown habitat (5), MONG (4), FONG (2), FTNN
(JEMA LSA=16)
(2), d1, SONS and WONN all had 1 occurrence.
2007 Suncor Millennium MD9 No observations n/a Golder (2007b)
American bittern (1) WONN
sora (12) MONG (9), SONS (1), WONN (2)
pied-billed grebe (1) FONG (standing water)
sora (3) 2 in STNN (standing water), 1 in MONS (MONG) lake margin
American bittern (1) SONS near creek
2008 Cenovus Narrows Lake Project Cenovus (2010)
sora (4) FTNN (2) near lake, SONS (2) near creek, BTNN (1) near lake
American bittern (26)
2008 to MacKay River Commercial sora (115)
habitats not reported. Observations were apparently incidental. AOSC (2009)
2009 Project yellow rail (11)
pied-billed grebe (8)
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-28 Marsh Bird Survey Results Within the Oil Sands Region (continued)
2008 West Ells SAGD Project sora n/a Sunshine (2010)
Southern Pacific
2009 McKay SAGD Pilot Project sora shrub habitat
(2009)
sora (1)
2008 to
Dover Commercial Project yellow rail (1) FONS Present Study
2010
American bittern (3)
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-29 Amphibian Survey Results Within the Region

Wood frog (7) unknown Westworth, Brusnyk and
1995 Suncor Steepbank Mine
boreal chorus frog (364+) most within a sedge wetlands type with aspen/poplar Associates (1996b)
striped chorus frog (n/a) unknown
1996 Shipyard Lake Golder (1996)
wood frog (n/a) unknown
PanCanadian Christina boreal chorus frog (29) e2, FTNN, FONS, WONS
1998 Lake Thermal Project boreal toad (17) e2, FTNN, FONS Golder (2000c)
Supplemental wood frog (2) e2
Incidentals (1998):
d1, d2, FONS, FTNN, h1
2000 Suncor Firebag Project boreal chorus frog (n/a) Golder (2000f)
wood frog (n/a) d2, FONS, FTNN
boreal chorus frog (116.5) MONG, SONS, FONG, FTNN, clearing
Canadian Natural PAW wood frog (40.34) MONG, SONS, FONG, FTNN, clearing, FONS
Project Canadian toad (6) MONG, FONG
western (boreal) toad (0.5) MONG
boreal chorus frog (34) d2, FONS, FTNN, MONG, SONS
2000 boreal toad (16) a1, f1, FTNN, MONG, SONS Golder (2000c)
wood frog (19) a1, e2, e3, FONS, FTNN, MONG, SONS
boreal frog (25) b2, b3, d1, d2, d3, e3, g1, BTNN, FONS, FTNN, MONS, STNN
wood frog (16) b3, d2, e3, BTNN, FONS, FTNN, MONS, STNN
PanCanadian Christina boreal chorus frog (26) f2, f3, g1, BTNN, FTNN, FONS, FONG, MONG, SONS, clearcut
2001 Lake Thermal Project wood frog (22) f2, f3, g1, BTNN, FTNN, FONS, FONG, MONG, SONS, clearcut Golder (2001b)
Supplemental boreal toad (19) f3, g1, BTNN, FTNN, FONS, FONG, MONG, clearcut
Suncor Firebag Project boreal chorus frog (18) ephemeral pond, permanent creek
2001 Golder (2000f)
Supplemental wood frog (7) ephemeral pond
b1, b4, c1, d1, d2, g1, disturbed, BTNN, FONS, FTNN, MONG,
boreal chorus frog (154)
MONS, SONS, STNN, WONN
b4, c1, d1, d2, g1, disturbed, BTNN, FONS, FTNN, MONG,
2001 Rio Alto Kirby Project wood frog (149) Rio Alto (2002)
MONS, SONS, STNN, WONN
c1, d1, d2, g1, disturbed, BTNN, FONS, FTNN, MONG, MONS,
boreal toad (81)
SONS, STNN, WONN
b3, c1, d2, BTNN, FONG, FONS, FTNN, MONG, MONS,
Petro-Canada Meadow shrubland, SONS, STNN
2001 Petro-Canada (2001)
Creek Project b1, b3, c1, d2, g1, BTNN, FONG, FONS, FTNN, MONG, MONS,
wood frog (82)
shrubland, SONS, STNN
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-29 Amphibian Survey Results Within the Region (continued)

b2, d2, FTNN, FONG, FONS, MONS, MONS/SONS,
Shell Jackpine Mine – MONS/STNN, STNN, SONS, WONN
2001 Golder (2002a)
Phase 1 b2, d2, FTNN, FONG, FONS, MONS, MONS/SONS,
wooded frog (28)
MONS/STNN, STNN, SONS, WONN
a1, b3, d1, d2, e1, e2, h1, BTNN, FONS, FTNN, MONG, MONS,
SONS, STNN, cutblock, landfill
2001 b3, e1, e2, BTNN, FONS, FTNN, MONG, MONS, SONS, STNN, Canadian Natural (2002)
Project wood frog (49)
cutblock
Canadian toad (12) a1, d2, BTNN, FTNN, MONS, SONS, STNN, landfill
Canadian toad (24) reclamation vegetation classes mixedwood willow and
2002 wood frog (17) mixedwood grassland. Wood frog and boreal chorus frog also Golder (2003b)
Project
boreal chorus frog (236) observed in deciduous willow
wood frog (15)
2002 Suncor South Tailings Pond d2, d3, FTNN, SONS, STNN Golder (2003c)
boreal chorus frog (many)
2002 Devon Jackfish Project wood frog (many) n/a Devon (2003)
western toad (many)
2003 wood frog (41) most observations in FTNN and FONS Golder (2004a)
Thermal Project
boreal toad (119)
western (boreal) toad (28)
most observations within standing water along cutlines, followed
MEG Energy Christina Lake wood frog (39)
2004 by FTNN; also recorded in a1, b1, b3, BTNN, MONG, MONS, MEG (2005a)
Regional Project boreal chorus frog (35)
WONN
Canadian toad incidental
wood frog (53)
2004 boreal chorus frog (636) reclaimed sites Golder (2004b)
Year Report
Canadian toad (83)
wood frog (26)
2004 Suncor Voyageur various Golder (2005)
wood frog (20)
wood frog (33) c1, d2, d3, FONS, FTNN
Canadian Natural Primrose boreal chorus frog (98) c1, d2, d3, FONS, FTNN, disturbed
2004 to 2005 Canadian Natural (2006)
East Expansion boreal toad (5) FONS, FTNN
Canadian toad (6) d2, FONS, FTNN, disturbed
western (boreal) toad (many)
2005 Devon Jackfish 2 Project wood frog (several) n/a Devon (2006)
boreal chorus frog (many)
Golder Associates
December 2010
Table E-29 Amphibian Survey Results Within the Region (continued)

2005 to 2006 Canadian toad (46) most observations in NWL and CC OPTI/Nexen (2006)
South Project
wood frog (34) disturbed (11), various others
2006 Suncor Voyageur South boreal chorus frog (272) disturbed (116), various others Golder (2007a)
Canadian toad (8) disturbed (5), e2, FONS, riparian
wood frog (31) FTNN (18), various others
boreal chorus frog (79) FTNN (214), various others
2006 Thermal Expansion Project, EnCana (2009)
boreal toad (39) FTNN (27), various others
Canadian toad (2) FTNN, BTNN
wood frog (162, 42)
primarily d2, FTNN, SONS
Shell Jackpine Mine boreal chorus frog (1998,
primarily FONG, FTNN, MONG
2007 Expansion and Pierre River 528) Golder (2007b)
BTNN, FTNN
Mining areas boreal toad (3, 0)
primarily c1, FTNN, dist
Canadian toad (24, 29)
wood frog (53) primarily FTNN, d2
2007 Suncor Millennium MD9 boreal chorus frog (48) primarily FTNN, d3 Golder (2007b)
Canadian toad (1) disturbed
wood frog (39) primarily FTNN
MEG Christina Lake
2008 boreal chorus frog (35) primarily FTNN MEG (2008)
Regional Project
western toad (28) primarily FTNN
wood frog (3) SONS and BTNN
Total Joslyn Mine
2008 boreal chorus frog (687) most frequently recorded in MONG Unpublished data
Expansion
Canadian toad (2) FTNN
wood frog (18) primarily FONS, MONS, and burned wetland
2008 EnerPlus Kirby Project boreal chorus frog (846) primarily FONS, STNN, and burned wetland EnerPlus (2008)
boreal toad (61) primarily FONS, and STNN
wood frog (36) primarily FTNN, secondarily FTNN, STNN
2008 boreal chorus frog (359) primarily FTNN, secondarily BTNN and STNN Cenovus (2010)
Project
boreal toad (34) primarily FTNN, secondarily BTNN, STNN and c1
boreal chorus frog
2008 West Ells SAGD Project n/a Sunshine (2010)
wood frog
none detected (no formal
2009 McKay SAGD Pilot Project n/a Southern Pacific (2009)
survey)
wood frog (40) primariliy BTNN, FONS and FTNN
boreal chorus frog (171) primariliy BTNN, FONS and FTNN
2008 to 2010 Dover Commercial Project Present Study
boreal toad (2) FONS, FTNN
Canadian toad (1) FONS
Golder Associates
ATTACHMENT F
PHOTOGRAPHIC BAIT STATION DATA

Dover Commercial Project F-1 Photographic Bait Station Data
December 2010
Table F-1 Winter Photographic Bait Station Results

Photos at Stations Days to First Photo
Species Stations
Number of Total
With Proportion Rate Mean Minimum Maximum
Photos Stations
Photos
marten 6 2 20 0.10 0.009 15.0 8.0 22.0
Canada lynx 9 5 20 0.25 0.013 14.6 0.4 32.8
coyote 1 1 20 0.05 0.002 28.2 n/a n/a
fisher 2 2 20 0.10 0.003 21.9 18.0 25.8
red squirrel 3 2 20 0.10 0.004 25.3 24.9 25.7
snowshoe
68 14 20 0.70 0.102 9.6 0.4 28.6
hare
Table F-2 Spring Photographic Bait Station Results

Species Stations
Number Total
of Photos Stations
Photos
marten 1 1 20 0.05 0.002 22.0 n/a n/a
black bear 30 11 20 0.55 0.060 7.7 0.3 22.3
Canada lynx 14 8 20 0.40 0.028 10.3 4.3 19.2
dark-eyed junco 1 1 20 0.05 0.002 4.0 n/a n/a
fisher 2 2 20 0.10 0.004 11.8 11.8 11.8
wolf 7 5 20 0.25 0.014 8.8 2.0 16.5
grouse spp. 1 1 20 0.05 0.002 4.7 n/a n/a
unknown
4 3 20 0.15 0.008 10.3 3.1 15.9
mammal spp.
moose 1 1 20 0.05 0.002 10.3 n/a n/a
red squirrel 2 1 20 0.05 0.004 21.0 n/a n/a
snowshoe hare 12 4 20 0.20 0.024 4.6 0.5 7.7
unknown bird
1 1 20 0.05 0.002 4.8 n/a n/a
spp.
vole spp. 2 1 20 0.05 0.004 1.5 n/a n/a
wolverine 2 1 20 0.05 0.004 15.0 n/a n/a
woodland
1 1 20 0.05 0.002 19.3 n/a n/a
caribou
Table F-3 Summer Photographic Bait Station Results

Species Stations
Number Total
of Photos Stations
Photos
marten 1 1 20 0.05 0.002 2.0 n/a n/a
black bear 52 15 20 0.75 0.093 8.7 1.0 18.2
Canada lynx 13 9 20 0.45 0.023 10.9 1.8 27.8
wolf 7 5 20 0.25 0.013 19.6 10.8 27.4
unknown
7 5 20 0.25 0.013 19.6 14.7 25.6
mammal spp.
moose 4 3 20 0.15 0.007 4.4 3.6 5.6
red squirrel 10 3 20 0.15 0.018 12.1 2.8 19.0
snowshoe
21 7 20 0.35 0.038 8.2 2.6 21.5
hare
Golder Associates
Dover Commercial Project F-2 Photographic Bait Station Data
December 2010
Table F-4 Fall Photographic Bait Station Results

Species Stations
Number Total
of Photos Stations
Photos
marten 3 1 20 0.05 0.005 2.6 n/a n/a
black bear 22 14 20 0.70 0.044 8.6 0.8 26.0
Canada lynx 18 7 20 0.35 0.031 13.1 1.1 26.4
coyote 1 1 20 0.05 0.002 23.3 n/a n/a
fisher 1 1 20 0.05 0.002 28.9 n/a n/a
wolf 4 1 20 0.05 0.006 10.1 n/a n/a
grouse spp. 7 3 20 0.15 0.011 5.2 0.8 8.0
unknown
26 12 20 0.60 0.042 9.7 0.4 28.5
mammal spp.
moose 4 2 20 0.10 0.006 20.9 17.3 24.5
red squirrel 20 5 20 0.25 0.032 10.4 3.3 15.3
snowshoe
96 13 20 0.65 0.156 6.4 0.5 14.6
hare
spruce grouse 1 1 20 0.05 0.002 28.0 n/a n/a
wolverine 2 1 20 0.05 0.003 9.8 n/a n/a
woodland
8 2 20 0.10 0.015 15.1 5.0 25.1
caribou
Golder Associates
ATTACHMENT G
PHOTOGRAPHIC BAIT STATION PHOTOGRAPHS

Dover Commercial Project G-1 Photographic Bait Station Photographs
December 2010
Photo 1 Marten During Spring Session Photo 2 Black Bear During Spring Session
Photo 3 Canada Lynx During Spring Session Photo 4 Dark-Eyed Junco During Spring Session
Golder Associates
December 2010
Photo 5 Fisher During Spring Session Photo 6 Wolf During Spring Session
Photo 7 Moose During Spring Session Photo 8 Red Squirrel During Spring Session
Golder Associates
December 2010
Photo 9 Snowshoe Hare During Spring Session Photo 10 Wolverine During Spring Session
Photo 11 Woodland Caribou During Spring Session Photo 12 Marten During Summer Session
Golder Associates
December 2010
Photo 13 Black Bear During Summer Session Photo 14 Canada Lynx During Summer Session
Photo 15 Wolf During Summer Session Photo 16 Moose During Summer Session
Golder Associates
December 2010
Photo 17 Red Squirrel During Summer Session Photo 18 Snowshoe Hare During Summer Session
Photo 19 Marten During Winter Session Photo 20 Canada Lynx During Winter Session
Golder Associates
December 2010
Photo 21 Coyote During Winter Session Photo 22 Fisher During Winter Session
Photo 23 Red Squirrel During Winter Session Photo 24 Snowshoe Hare During Winter Session
Golder Associates
December 2010
Photo 25 Marten During Fall Session Photo 26 Black Bear During Fall Session
Photo 27 Canada Lynx During Fall Session Photo 28 Coyote During Fall Session
Golder Associates
December 2010
Photo 29 Fisher During Fall Session Photo 30 Wolf During Fall Session
Photo 31 Moose During Fall Session Photo 32 Red Squirrel During Fall Session
Golder Associates
December 2010
Photo 33 Snowshoe Hare During Fall Session Photo 34 Spruce Grouse During Fall Session
Photo 35 Wolverine During Fall Session Photo 36 Woodland Caribou During Fall Session
Golder Associates
ATTACHMENT H
BREEDING BIRD RESULTS IN THE REGION
Golder Associates
Dover Commercial Project H-1 Breeding Bird Results in the Region
December 2010
Table H-1 Breeding Bird Species Richness and Relative Abundance in the Regional Study Area
Ecosite a1 b1 b2 b3 b4 BONN BTNN disturbed burn c1 disturbed clearcut d1 d2 d3 e1 e2 e3 f1 f2 f3 FONG FONS FTNN g1 h1 meadow MONG SONS STNN Total
Number of Point Counts 8 16 1 4 3 3 33 2 14 1 13 27 9 2 2 4 1 1 2 5 28 30 10 5 1 2 5 4 236
alder flycatcher - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 - - - - - 4 - 9
American redstart - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 2 - - - - - 1 - 6
American robin - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - 2
bay-breasted warbler - 2 - 1 - - - - 1 - - 4 2 - - - - - 2 - - - - 1 - - - - 13
black and white warbler - - - - - - - - - - 1 3 - - 1 - 1 - - 1 - - 1 1 - - - 1 10
black throated green warbler - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1
black-and-white warbler - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
black-capped chickadee - 1 - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 4
blackpoll warbler - - - 1 - - 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 2 - - - - - 1 8
blue-headed vireo - - - - - - - - - - 3 4 1 - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - 10
brown creeper - - - - - - - - - - - 2 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3
Cape May warbler - 1 - 1 - - 1 - - - 1 8 4 1 - 3 - 1 2 1 - 1 - 3 - - - - 28
cedar waxwing - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 2 - - - - 2 5
chestnut-collared longspur - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - 1
chipping sparrow - 2 - 1 - 1 1 - - - 1 7 3 - - 2 - - 2 2 3 2 2 - - 1 1 1 32
clay-colored sparrow - - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 2 - - - - 1 - 9
common yellowthroat - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - 2 6 2 - - - 1 4 - 16
Connecticut warbler - - - - - - - - - - 1 2 - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4
dark-eyed junco 1 4 1 - - - 17 1 - - - 2 1 1 - - - - 1 2 2 7 3 - - - - - 43
eastern kingbird - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - - - 2
fox sparrow - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - 2
golden crowned kinglet - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1
gray jay - 4 - - - - 3 - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - 2 - - 14
hairy woodpecker - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
hermit thrush 1 1 - - - - 1 - 2 - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - 4 - - - - - 10
Le Conte’s sparrow - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 6 4 - - 1 1 - - 13
least flycatcher - 2 - - 1 1 1 - - - 1 2 - - 1 - 1 - - - 2 1 - - - - - - 13
Lincoln’s sparrow - - - - - 1 2 - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - 8 10 - - - - 1 - 23
magnolia warbler - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 8 - 1 - 2 1 - 20
marsh wren - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - 2
mourning warbler - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - 3
northern waterthrush - - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - 3
olive-sided flycatcher - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - 1 - 3
orange-crowned warbler - - - - 2 - - - 1 - 1 2 1 - 1 - - - - 1 4 4 1 - - - - 1 19
ovenbird - 4 - - - - - - - 1 6 10 3 1 2 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 28
palm warbler - - - - - 1 17 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 6 4 - - - - 1 31
Philadelphia vireo - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2
pine siskin - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
red-breasted nuthatch - - - - 2 - - - - - - 5 1 - - - - - 1 - 1 - - - - - - - 10
red-eyed vireo - - - - - - - - - - 4 2 - 1 - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - 8
red-winged blackbird - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 1 1 - 3
rose-breasted grosbeak - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2
ruby-crowned kinglet - - - - - - 4 - 1 - - 1 - - - - - - - - - 3 1 - - - - - 10
Say’s phoebe - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - 1 - - - - - 2
song sparrow - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - 2
Swainson’s thrush - - - 1 - - - - - - - 3 - - - - - 1 1 - - 1 - 1 - - - - 8
swamp sparrow - - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 7 5 - - - - 4 - 19
Tennessee warbler 1 6 1 3 1 - 10 2 7 1 6 23 13 2 2 3 1 2 2 4 21 25 3 7 2 2 5 6 161
tree swallow - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - 1
Golder Associates
Dover Commercial Project H-2 Breeding Bird Results in the Region
December 2010
Table H-1 Breeding Bird Species Richness and Relative Abundance in the Regional Study Area (continued)
Ecosite a1 b1 b2 b3 b4 BONN BTNN disturbed burn c1 disturbed clearcut d1 d2 d3 e1 e2 e3 f1 f2 f3 FONG FONS FTNN g1 h1 meadow MONG SONS STNN Total
Number of Point Counts 8 16 1 4 3 3 33 2 14 1 13 27 9 2 2 4 1 1 2 5 28 30 10 5 1 2 5 4 236
warbling vireo - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
western tanager - - - - 1 - - - - - - 6 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8
western wood-pewee - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - 1
white-throated sparrow - - - - - - - - - 1 - 2 - - - - 1 - - - 4 3 - - - - 1 - 12
white-winged crossbill 1 - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3
Wilson’s warbler - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - 3
winter wren - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - 1 - 1 - - - - - - - - - - 3
yellow warbler - - - - - - - - 3 - - 1 - - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - 2 - 8
yellow-bellied flycatcher - - - - - - 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - -- - 1 5
yellow-bellied sapsucker - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2
yellow-rumped warbler 3 8 - 2 - 1 6 - 6 - 1 5 2 1 - 2 - - 1 - 2 7 6 1 - - - - 54
Total 7 37 2 10 13 6 75 4 26 3 27 104 34 7 10 13 5 7 15 20 96 99 28 15 3 10 33 13 722
- = No observations.
Golder Associates

Wildlife Baseline Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wildlife Baseline Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WILDLIFE

DOVER COMMERCIAL PROJECT

Dover Operating Corp.

December 2010 09-1346-1011

 ungulate aerial surveys;

Twenty-three species of provincial concern were recorded in the LSA during

Aerial surveys were conducted during 2008 to 2010 to assess ungulate

Winter track count surveys were conducted to sample terrestrial carnivores,

Caribou tracks were found 18 times, yielding a track density of

Muskrats were not recorded incidentally during field surveys. However, an

2 METHODS ................................................................................................................ 10

3 RESULTS — MAMMALS .......................................................................................... 41

4 RESULTS – BIRDS ................................................................................................... 72

4.1 OWLS ............................................................................................................................72

5 RESULTS — AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES ........................................................... 91

6 RESULTS — IMPORTANT WILDLIFE HABITAT ..................................................... 99

7 RESULTS — SPECIES OF CONCERN IN AND AROUND THE LOCAL

8 CLOSURE ............................................................................................................... 123

9 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 124

10 ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................... 151

11 GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................ 153

Table 1 Local Study Area Physiographic Setting .................................................................9

Figure 1 Project Location .......................................................................................................2

Attachment A Common Names, Scientific Names and Status of Species Observed

Phases 3 to 5 will include construction and progressive 50,000 bpd expansions of

Baseline wildlife surveys were completed to support the Environmental Impact

 Attachment A: Common names, scientific names and status of species

1.1 STUDY OBJECTIVES

 identify wildlife resources that might be affected by the Project;

1.2 STUDY AREAS

1.2.1 Regional Study Area

 ecodistrict or vegetation classification boundaries;

k CENTRE. PARKS OBTAINED FROM ALBERTA TOURISM, PARKS AND RECREATION.

Teepee od Buffalo Lake

PROJECT 09-1346-1011 FILE No.

Gr DESIGN AD 08 Feb. 2010 SCALE AS SHOWN REV. 0

Gregoire Lake GIS BF 14 Oct. 2010

I.R.176 CHECK VBS 28 Nov. 2010

Well-drained to imperfectly drained uplands present in the southern portion of

Landforms in the region are comprised predominantly of ground moraine with

1.2.2 Local Study Area

Rg.19 Namur Lake

LOCAL STUDY AREA

The remainder of the LSA, located south of the DNP, is characterized by a

Table 1 Local Study Area Physiographic Setting

Relief is generally undulating throughout the southern portion of the LSA

 MacKay Operating Corp. (MacKay OPCO) MacKay River Commercial

2.1 WILDLIFE BASELINE SURVEYS

2.1.1 Ungulate Aerial Survey

UNGULATE AERIAL SURVEY TRANSECTS

A sightability correction factor was calculated in 2010 by surveying three 2 km2

due to weather and vegetation conditions, a sightability correction factor of 1.0

No correction factor was applied to moose or woodland caribou observations.

2.1.2 Winter Track Count Survey

Rg.19 Rg.18 Rg.17 Rg.16

Rabbit Lake D u n kir

380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 430000 440000

IN AND AROUND THE LOCAL STUDY AREA,

2008 THROUGH 2010

Tracks per km-day = number of tracks observed

A total of 563.1 km-days were sampled in 22 vegetation communities and two

2.1.3 Photographic Bait Stations

RECONYX® digital cameras triggered by an infrared motion detector were used

Bait stations were distributed in a manner designed to capture most wide-ranging