algar lake sagd project – wildlife … lake sagd project – wildlife assessment grizzly oil sands...

ALGAR LAKE SAGD PROJECT – WILDLIFE ASSESSMENT

Grizzly Oil Sands ULC. Millennium EMS Solutions Ltd.

Westworth Associates Environmental Ltd. Edmonton, Alberta

January 2010

WILDLIFE ASSESSMENT Algar Lake SAGD Project

Westworth Associates Environmental Ltd. Page i

Acknowledgements

The study team gratefully acknowledges Dane McCoy, Kim Young and Callie Volf of Millennium

EMS Solutions Ltd. for providing overall project management and guidance. The study team

would also like to acknowledge Bryan Lea of RCS Energy Services Ltd. who coordinated safety

training and logistical support for the field crews and Jody MacEachern of Geographic Dynamics

Corporation for providing ecosite phase mapping for the project.

Study Team

Study Component Study Team Member

Project Management Lawrence Brusnyk

Assistant Project Manager / Wildlife Lead Stephanie Grossman

Field Surveys / Data Entry and Analysis Kevin Kardynal, Jason Duxbury, Lisa Burt, Megan Watters, Richard Wiacek, Lisa Burt

Report Preparation / GIS Stephanie Grossman / Megan Watters

Senior Review Lawrence Brusnyk / Dave Westworth

Project Assistant / Documentation Sarah Plambeck


Page ii Westworth Associates Environmental Ltd.


Westworth Associates Environmental Ltd. Page iii

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 STUDY AREA AND METHODS ...................................................................................................... 3

2.1 STUDY AREA .................................................................................................................................. 3

2.2 METHODS ....................................................................................................................................... 3

2.2.1 Review of Existing Information ............................................................................................. 3

2.2.2 Field Surveys ........................................................................................................................ 4

2.2.3 Special Status Species ....................................................................................................... 11

3.0 WILDLIFE HABITATS .................................................................................................................... 14

3.1 OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................... 14

3.2 SAGD PROJECT STUDY AREA ....................................................................................................... 16

3.3 ACCESS ROAD STUDY AREA .......................................................................................................... 18

4.0 WILDIFE USE ................................................................................................................................. 19

4.1 EXISTING INFORMATION ................................................................................................................. 19

4.2 FIELD SURVEYS ............................................................................................................................ 19

4.2.1 Wildlife Habitat Assessment ............................................................................................... 19

4.2.2 Winter Tracking Survey ...................................................................................................... 20

4.2.3 Aerial Ungulate Survey ....................................................................................................... 27

4.2.4 Owl Survey ......................................................................................................................... 27

4.2.5 Raptor Survey ..................................................................................................................... 28

4.2.6 Amphibian and Yellow Rail Surveys ................................................................................... 29

4.2.7 Songbird Surveys ............................................................................................................... 29

4.2.8 Waterbird Surveys .............................................................................................................. 32

4.3 SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES .............................................................................................. 33

5.0 WILDLIFE ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................. 36

5.1 SAGD PROJECT STUDY AREA ....................................................................................................... 36

5.1.1 Habitat Loss ........................................................................................................................ 36

5.1.2 Mortality .............................................................................................................................. 37

5.1.3 Habitat Fragmentation and Connectivity ............................................................................ 38

5.2 ACCESS ROAD STUDY AREA .......................................................................................................... 38

5.2.1 Habitat Loss ........................................................................................................................ 38

5.2.2 Mortality .............................................................................................................................. 40


5.3 WILDLIFE PROTECTION MEASURES ................................................................................................ 41


Page iv Westworth Associates Environmental Ltd.

5.3.1 Habitat Loss ........................................................................................................................ 41

5.3.2 Mortality .............................................................................................................................. 41


5.4 MONITORING ................................................................................................................................. 42

6.0 LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................................................... 43

7.0 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS ................................................................................................. 46

8.0 FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................ 47


Westworth Associates Environmental Ltd. Page v

List of Tables Table 1. Summary of major SAGD plant site and associated infrastructure features of the

Algar Lake SAGD Project. ..................................................................................................... 1

Table 2. List of key wildlife species and assessment criteria used in the SAGD Project Study Area. ............................................................................................................................ 5

Table 3. Definition of general status categories for wildlife in Alberta (Source: ASRD 2008). ... 12

Table 4. Definition of federal status ranking for wildlife in Canada (Source: COSEWIC 2008). ................................................................................................................................... 12

Table 5. The CEMA ranking of priority wildlife species and wildlife species groups in the Athabasca oil sands region (Source: CEMA 2000). ............................................................ 13

Table 6. Structural stage definitions used to describe stand age for each habitat type in the SAGD Project Study Area. ................................................................................................... 14

Table 7. Areal extent of habitat types in the SAGD Project Study Area. ................................... 17

Table 8. Areal extent of habitat types in the Access Road Study Area. .................................... 18

Table 9. Number of wildlife habitat assessment points by habitat type in the SAGD Project Study Area. .......................................................................................................................... 19

Table 10. Summary of habitat rankings for key wildlife species by habitat type in the SAGD Project Study Area. .............................................................................................................. 21

Table 11. Summary of habitat quality rankings for woodland caribou by habitat type in the SAGD Project Study Area. ................................................................................................... 22

Table 12. Winter tracking survey effort by habitat type in the SAGD Project Study Area. ......... 22

Table 13. Track densities of furbearers recorded during winter track surveys in the SAGD Project Study Area. .............................................................................................................. 23

Table 14. Densities of grouse tracks by habitat type recorded during winter track surveys in the SAGD Project Study Area. ............................................................................................. 25

Table 15. Track densities of ungulates recorded during winter track surveys in the SAGD Project Study Area. .............................................................................................................. 26

Table 16. Area surveyed by habitat type during the nocturnal owl surveys in the SAGD Project Study Area. .............................................................................................................. 28

Table 17. Habitat types sampled during the diurnal raptor survey in the SAGD Project Study Area. .......................................................................................................................... 28


Page vi Westworth Associates Environmental Ltd.

Table 18. Habitat types sampled during amphibian and yellow rail surveys in the SAGD Project Study Area. .............................................................................................................. 29

Table 19. Bird species recorded during the songbird survey in the SAGD Project Study Area. .................................................................................................................................... 30

Table 20. Songbird densities in the SAGD Project Study Area. ................................................ 30

Table 21. Density and species richness of songbirds by habitat type in the SAGD Project Study Area. .......................................................................................................................... 31

Table 22. Songbird diversity by habitat type in the SAGD Project Study Area. ......................... 32

Table 23. Waterfowl, waterbirds and shorebirds recorded during surveys conducted in the SAGD Project Study Area. .................................................................................................. 33

Table 24. Wildlife special status species that may occur in the Algar Lake SAGD Project study area. ........................................................................................................................... 34

Table 25. Areal extent of wildlife habitat that will be lost during construction of the plant site-related facilities in the SAGD Project Study Area. ............................................................... 36

Table 26. Areal extent of wildlife habitats disturbed by associated facilities (e.g., access road, borrow pits, water line, gas line) in Access Road Study Area. ................................... 39


Westworth Associates Environmental Ltd. Page vii

List of Figures Figure 1. Location of the Algar Lake SAGD Project in northeastern Alberta. ............................ 48

Figure 2. Habitat types within the SAGD Project Study Area. ................................................... 49

Figure 3. Habitat types within the Access Road Study Area. .................................................... 50

Figure 4. Location of habitat assessment points in the SAGD Project Study Area. .................. 51

Figure 5. Location of winter tracking transects in the SAGD Project Study Area. ...................... 52

Figure 6. Location of the Algar Lake SAGD Project in relation to 2 woodland caribou herds of the ESAR woodland caribou range in northeastern Alberta. ........................................... 53

Figure 7. Location of aerial ungulate survey transects in the SAGD Project Study Area. ......... 54

Figure 8. Location of owl survey stations in the SAGD Project Study Area. ............................. 55

Figure 9. Location of raptor survey stations in the SAGD Project Study Area. ......................... 56

Figure 10. Location of amphibian and yellow rail stations and survey area in the SAGD Project Study Area. .............................................................................................................. 57

Figure 11. Location of songbird stations and waterfowl transects in the SAGD Project Study Area. .................................................................................................................................... 58

Figure 12. Development footprints in the SAGD Project and Access Road Study Area. .......... 59


Page viii Westworth Associates Environmental Ltd.


Westworth Associates Environmental Ltd. Page 1

1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

Grizzly Oil Sands ULC is proposing to construct a 10,000 to 12,000 bbl/d steam-assisted gravity

drainage (SAGD) project in the Algar Lake area (hereinafter referred to as the Algar Lake SAGD

Project or the Project) of northeastern Alberta. The Project will be comprised of a pilot plant, 4

well pads, a borrow pit, well pad access roads, camp site, and a pipeline corridor which will

collectively occupy about 43.2 ha (Table 1). The plant site, well pads and a single borrow pit will

account for about 84% (or 36.4 ha) of the SAGD plant site. A 10 km long access road and 11

km long waterline extending west into the Project area will account for 82% of the total area that

will be required for various types of infrastructure. Overall, associated infrastructure accounts

for almost 64% of the total Algar Lake SAGD Project footprint while the SAGD plant site

represents just over 36% of the footprint (Table 1).

Table 1. Summary of major SAGD plant site and associated infrastructure features of the Algar

Lake SAGD Project.

Project Components No. Area (ha) % of Total Area

SAGD Plant Site:

Plant Site 1 10.8 25.0

Well Pads 4 14.3 33.1

Borrow Pit 1 11.3 26.2

Well Pad Access Roads 1 2.0 4.6

Camp Site 1 1.1 2.6

Pipeline Corridor 1 3.7 8.6

Subtotal 43.2 100.1 (36.3) 1

Associated Infrastructure:

Access Road 1 40.2 53.0

Borrow Pits 6 6.0 7.9

Gas Line Corridor 1 5.3 7.0

Waterline Corridor 1 22.0 29.0

Water Source Wells 3 2.3 3.0

Subtotal 75.8 99.9 (63.7)

Totals 119.0 (100.00) 1 Numbers in brackets indicate % of the total Algar SAGD Project area.


Page 2 Westworth Associates Environmental Ltd.



2 2.0 STUDY AREA AND METHODS

2.1 Study Area

The Algar Lake SAGD Project is located approximately 45 km south of Fort McMurray, Alberta

(Figure 1) and is comprised of two study areas. The SAGD Project Study Area includes

Sections 2, 3, 10, 11, 13-15, and 22-27 of Township 85, Range 12, west of the 4th meridian. An

access road that extends east from the Project Study Area and south along an existing right-of-

way to Section 19 of Township 84, Range 12, west of the 4th meridian comprises the Access

Road Study Area. The SAGD Project Study Area occupies 3,420 ha while the 10 km long

Access Road Study Area includes habitats within 500 m of either side of the road centerline and

occupies about 1,352 ha.

The Algar Lake SAGD Project falls within the Central Mixedwood Subregion of the Boreal

Forest Natural Region. This subregion is characterized by a mix of black spruce bog, aspen

and white spruce forest although mature black spruce-dominated forest is the dominant habitat

type within the SAGD Project and Access Road Study Areas. Little Horse Creek, which flows

south to north through the middle of the Project Study Area, is surrounded by a narrow ridge of

upland forest on either side characterized by mature white spruce forest with smaller patches of

aspen and mixedwood forests. Black spruce-dominated forest is the most common habitat type

in the area surrounding the SAGD Project and Access Road Study Areas. This lowland habitat

type is important for several sensitive, rare and endangered wildlife species, including woodland

caribou. The proposed access road will intersect multiple habitat types including lowland treed

and shrubby habitats, and minor amounts of white spruce and other habitat types.

2.2 Methods

2.2.1 Review of Existing Information

A thorough review of relevant wildlife information was conducted. Relevant wildlife survey data

was reviewed from other recent oil sands applications in northeastern Alberta including Petro

Canada (McKay River and Meadow Creek projects), Connacher Oil and Gas Ltd. (Great Divide

project), and Orion Oil (Whitesands project). In addition, the following agencies and databases

were contacted or searched to obtain background information on the wildlife resources present

in the vicinity of the Algar Lake SAGD Project including:

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD);

Fish and Wildlife Management Information System (FWMIS)



Alberta Natural Heritage Information System (ANHIC);

Alberta Caribou Committee (ACC); and

Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA).

Several knowledgeable individuals were contacted regarding information on the wildlife

resources of the area. Todd Powell (Regional Wildlife Biologist, ASRD) and John Rintoul

(Program Director, ANHIC) provided information regarding the occurrence and management of

woodland caribou in the region and on the possible occurrence of species of conservation

concern and rare natural elements (wildlife habitats or species), respectively.

2.2.2 Field Surveys

Field surveys to determine wildlife use of the SAGD Project Study Area were conducted

between the fall of 2007 and the summer of 2008. However, most of the Access Road Study

Area was not surveyed for wildlife because the route had not been finalized at the time the field

surveys were conducted. Because of the proximity of the SAGD Project and Access Road

Study Areas and the similarities in habitat types, data recorded during the SAGD Project Study

Area wildlife surveys were extrapolated to the Access Road Study Area for purposes of this

application. Wildlife surveys were generally focussed on habitat types used by target wildlife

species or groups. For example, owl and raptor surveys were concentrated in upland habitats

along the Little Horse Creek valley, where mature forest with suitable nesting trees were

located, whereas songbird surveys were conducted throughout the study area in all accessible

habitat types. All wildlife surveys followed accepted wildlife survey protocols currently being

used for similar projects in northeastern Alberta.

2.2.2.1 Wildlife Habitat Assessment

In fall 2007, habitats were assessed to identify potential wildlife use and the presence of

important wildlife features for birds, amphibians and mammals (specifically for woodland

caribou). Habitats within survey plots were rated for a number of wildlife species, based on key

habitat elements required for survival (Table 1). Habitat rankings were determined by assessing

relevant habitat characteristics (e.g., coarse woody debris for mustelids, appropriate nesting

trees for raptors, etc.) for a number of wildlife species. For most wildlife species considered, an

assigned rank of 1 represented excellent habitat for a species, with adequate nesting, denning

or foraging opportunities, while ranks of 4 to 6 represented little or no habitat suitability for a

species. In the case of woodland caribou, habitat was ranked on a scale from 1 – 70. Each

habitat requisite had a maximum value of 10, resulting in a maximum rating of 70. For each

habitat type, multiple sites may have been sampled, so the value for a given habitat requirement

is an average of the sample sites, resulting in an overall average rating for that habitat type for

woodland caribou.



Table 2. List of key wildlife species and assessment criteria used in the SAGD Project Study

Area.

Species Ranking

Scale Requirement Assessed Key Criterion

Birds:

Cape May warbler 1 - 4 Breeding Habitat Structural stage Percent white spruce in canopyEvidence of spruce budworm

Black-throated green warbler 1 - 4 Breeding Habitat Deciduous componentStructural stage

Northern goshawk 1 - 4 Breeding Habitat

Deciduous componentCanopy closure Number of large deciduous treesDistance to disturbance

Pileated woodpecker 1 - 4 Breeding Habitat

Deciduous componentCanopy closure Density of large deciduous treesDensity of standing snags

Yellow rail 1 - 4 Breeding Habitat Presence of standing waterPercent sedge coverPercent shrub cover

Barred owl 1 - 4 Breeding Habitat Deciduous componentDistance to wetland

Ruffed grouse 1 - 4 Winter Habitat Structural stage Deciduous componentShrub density

Amphibians:

Canadian toad 1 - 4 Breeding/Hibernating Habitat Wetland type Distance to water

Mammals: Moose 1 - 6 Winter Forage Percent shrub cover

Black bear 1 - 4 Spring Forage Percent preferred forageStructural stage Distance to roads

Black bear 1 - 4 Fall Forage Percent shrub coverDistance to roads

Fisher 1 - 4 Winter Living Percent canopy coverPercent shrub coverDeciduous component

American beaver 1 - 4 Forage Percent canopy coverDistance to permanent water

Woodland caribou 1 - 70 Winter Living

Canopy closure Food plant diversityPercent food plant coverAmount of deadfall Habitat diversity

2.2.2.2 Winter Tracking Survey

Winter track surveys were conducted in February 2008 to obtain information on habitat use and

winter distribution of furbearing mammals and ungulates in the SAGD Project Study Area.

Transects were distributed throughout the study area and included all dominant habitat types.

Each transect began at an access road, trail or seismic line and ranged in length from

approximately 200 to 300 m. Wildlife tracks that intersected each transect were identified to

species (where possible) and recorded at 25 m intervals.



Attempts were made to estimate the number of animals travelling on a wildlife trail, but the exact

number of tracks of snowshoe hare and red squirrel often could not be determined. In these

cases, it was assumed that snowshoe hare runs were comprised of 5 individual tracks and red

squirrel runs were comprised of 3 individual tracks. Track frequencies (tracks/km/day) for each

habitat type sampled were calculated based on the time between a fresh snowfall of more than

2 cm, the time the track survey was conducted, and track transect length.

2.2.2.3 Winter Aerial Ungulate Survey

Information on ungulate distribution, habitat use and population size and structure was also

collected during a winter aerial survey of the SAGD Project Study Area conducted in February

2008. A Bell 206B Jet Ranger helicopter was used for the aerial survey, flying approximately

100 m above ground at an air speed ranging from 90 to 110 km/hr. Parallel transects were

established at 800 m intervals in an east-west direction. Observers included a navigator-

observer in the front left seat and 2 observers, seated on each side of the rear of the aircraft.

Observers were able to detect ungulates within 200 m of either side of the helicopter, resulting

in approximately 50% coverage of the study area.

When animals were located, the helicopter slowly circled the animal(s) and the species, number

of individuals, age and sex of observed animals, habitat in which the animals were observed,

GPS location and time of observation were recorded. The sex and age of moose can be

determined using a combination of physical characteristics (Mitchell 1970) including relative

body size, presence or absence of a vulva patch, nose colour and presence of antler scars.

Sex and age classification of white-tailed deer were not attempted, as these characteristics are

difficult to determine during mid-winter aerial surveys.

Winter aerial ungulate survey data is used to estimate the abundance or density (no. of

animals/km2) of ungulate species within a study area. Aerial surveys tend to underestimate

ungulate populations because observers are unlikely to see all the animals present in a given

area (Caughley and Goddard 1972). Under estimation of ungulate populations can result from a

number of factors including dense forest cover, poor snow conditions, poor lighting and

observer fatigue (Caughley 1974, LaResche and Rausch 1974). While survey and snow

conditions were excellent during the aerial ungulate survey, some portions of the study area

contained dense forest cover, resulting in potential underestimates of ungulate populations. To

compensate for this factor, a sightability correction factor of 1.1 was applied to the moose and

deer counts for surveys with low observability (Gasaway et al. 1986). This value is similar to

other sightability correction factors previously adopted for moose surveys in northern Alberta

(Horejsi and Hornbeck 198,; Brusnyk and Westworth 1986).



2.2.2.4 Owl Survey

Owls are primarily nocturnal (i.e., active at night) and most species are known to respond to

playbacks of recorded owl calls (Mosher et al. 1990, Resource Inventory Committee 2001). Call

playback calls were used to detect breeding nocturnal owls within the SAGD Project Study Area

in April 2008. Broadcast surveys were considered to be an appropriate survey method for most

species likely to inhabit the region (Takats and Holroyd 1997). The nocturnal owl surveys

included the boreal owl, northern saw-whet owl, great gray owl, long-eared owl, barred owl, and

the great horned owl which were expected to occur in the study area and are known to respond

to broadcast calls. Other species that may inhabit the study area but are not likely to respond to

broadcast surveys include the short-eared owl and the northern hawk owl. These species may

be observed incidentally during other surveys conducted in the study area.

Predetermined broadcast stations were established approximately 1,600 m apart along

accessible portions of the SAGD Project Study Area, resulting in an 800 m listening radius for

each station. This spacing of the listening stations allows for maximum coverage and

distribution of points while minimizing the possibility of eliciting responses from the same

individual at more than 1 broadcast station (Takats and Holroyd 1997). Broadcast stations were

selected to maximize coverage of mature forest, where many owl species of interest (e.g.,

great-gray owl and barred owl; Johnsgard 1988) are expected to nest. Surveys began ½ hr

after sunset and were concluded by approximately 0100 hrs each morning. Each broadcast

station began with a 2 min period of silence to allow for disturbance effects from travel to

subside. Twenty sec owl calls were then played followed by another period of silence after each

call. Pre-recorded owl calls were broadcast on a Sony PSYC or similar compact disc (CD)

player. Smaller owl species were broadcast first to avoid creating an aversion of small species

towards the calls of larger owl species and to avoid potential predation of smaller owls by larger

species. The order of the broadcast was 1) northern saw-whet owl, 2) boreal owl, 3) long-eared

owl, 4) barred owl, 5) great gray owl, and 6) great horned owl.

The approximate locations of owls were calculated from the UTM coordinates of the survey

station, the compass bearing and estimated distance of the vocalizing owl from the station. This

yielded an approximate location only, and did not allow for determination of any habitat

association. Owls generally respond to broadcast calls by calling and moving towards the

survey station, and therefore, the location at which the owl was heard calling was not

necessarily the habitat in which it was prior to the broadcast call. Therefore, it was not

considered necessary to precisely locate each responding owl. Densities of raptors were not

estimated due to low sample size and the potential for bias when inciting responses of raptors

through call broadcasting.



2.2.2.5 Amphibian and Yellow Rail Surveys

Amphibian and yellow rail surveys were conducted in late May 2008. Amphibians breed during

spring in suitable wetlands adjacent to preferred terrestrial habitat. Male frogs and toads call

loudly from these wetlands during the breeding season. Their calls are unique to each species

and can be heard from a considerable distance. Canadian toad breeding calls can be heard by

observers up to 1,000 m away (AXYS 1999, 2001a, 2001b).

The timing of the surveys were designed to coincide with peak calling periods for Canadian

toads and yellow rails. Details of yellow rail breeding habits are poorly understood and surveys

for this species in the Northwest Territories have been conducted in mid- to late June; however,

yellow rails may start calling as early as mid- to late May (R. Bazin, Canadian Wildlife Service,

personal communication).

The amphibian survey was conducted at a series of predetermined listening points set up along

Little Horse Creek, where Canadian toads were most likely to be found, at 1,000 m intervals to

maximize coverage of the SAGD Project Study Area. Surveys began 30 m after sunset and

typically ended at 0100 hrs the following morning. At each listening point, an observer listened

for 5 min and recorded all calling amphibians. The relative abundance of amphibians was

coded by species using the following call classification:

0 = no amphibians heard;

1 = individuals can be counted (no overlapping calls);

2 = calls of individuals are distinguishable, but some calls overlap; and

3 = full chorus, or continuous calls, where individuals cannot be distinguished.

Following the 5 min listening period for amphibians, observers used a call-playback method to

elicit responses from yellow rails. At each predetermined listening station, vocalizations of

yellow rails were played for approximately 30 sec, followed by 30 sec of listening, and repeated

5 times (Bazin and Baldwin 2007). Results of the amphibian and yellow rail surveys were

reported as presence or absence only because of the low sample size for yellow rails and the

inability to determine total number of amphibians from high densities and call overlap.

2.2.2.6 Forest Raptor Survey

Forest raptors that may occur in the SAGD Project Study Area include the northern goshawk,

broad-winged hawk, Cooper’s hawk, and sharp-shinned hawk. Forest raptors typically live in

closed canopy forests, build nests below the forest canopy and are difficult to detect. An

effective method for surveying forest raptors is to use broadcast calls to elicit a vocal or visual

response, similar to the method used for owls (Rosenfeld et al. 1985, Kennedy and Stahlecker

1993, Resources Inventory Committee 1996).



The forest raptor survey was conducted in May 2008. Pre-determined broadcast stations were

established along Little Horse Creek where most of the suitable habitat for forest raptors exists

in the study area (mature upland stands). Each station was approximately 1,000 m apart and

was surveyed in daylight hours, when forest raptors are active. Each station surveyed an area

of approximately a 500 m radius; therefore this distribution of points allowed for some overlap of

survey area which maximized coverage of the study area.

At each station, a 2 min period of silence was observed before beginning the broadcasts to

allow for the effects of the observer to subside. Following the quiet period, a recording was

played that consisted of a sequence of 30 sec of calling followed by 30 sec of silence, 10 sec of

calling, 30 sec of silence, 10 sec of calling, and 30 sec of silence for each species in the

following order: 1) sharp-shinned hawk, 2) Cooper’s hawk, 3) broad-winged hawk, 4) northern

goshawk, and 5) great horned owl. Forest hawks have been found to respond to the territorial

call of the great horned owl (Mosher and Fuller 1996), so this call was also incorporated at the

end of the calling sequence. At each 10 sec calling interval, the portable CD player was rotated

120 degrees to maximize broadcast effectiveness and to survey the broadcast radius at each

station in all directions.

The exact location of calling raptors was determined where possible; however, raptors often call

from a distance and triangulation is required to accurately estimate the location. Raptor survey

data were summarized on the basis of species presence or absence (not detected) by habitat

type. Densities of raptors were not estimated due to low sample size and the potential for bias

when eliciting responses of raptors through call broadcasting.

2.2.2.7 Breeding Bird Survey

Early morning point counts for breeding songbirds were conducted in June 2008. June is the

peak breeding season for songbirds in northern Alberta, and is considered to be the ideal time

for conducting breeding bird surveys. The songbird surveys were used to determine both the

diversity and abundance of songbirds within each habitat type present in the SAGD Project

Study Area. Particular emphasis was placed on detecting rare, sensitive or endangered

species, such as the black-throated green warbler, Cape May warbler, and blackburnian

warbler.

A modified fixed-radius point-count sampling procedure as described by Bibby et al. (1993) was

used for the breeding bird survey. This survey method includes a stationary observation point,

where all birds are recorded by sight or sound within 50 m of the observer. Circular census

plots with 50 m radii were established within a single ecosite phase where possible. For this

reason, points were established in vegetation polygons that were approximately 150 m in

diameter to accommodate the 50 m radius census point and a 25 m buffer from the edge of the



polygon. However, to effectively sample all habitat types, some points included more than 1

ecosite phase. All survey points were also located a minimum of 50 m from an access road,

trail or seismic line and were accessed by helicopter and on foot.

Songbirds are active and vocal during the early morning; therefore, bird surveys were initiated

no earlier than ½ hr before sunrise and were continued until approximately 1030 hrs. As

climatic and temporal conditions can greatly influence the behaviour of birds, and therefore the

outcome of bird surveys, efforts were made to survey during conditions when birds would be the

most active (i.e., when winds were below Beaufort Wind Scale 3 [12 km/hr] and no

precipitation).

Once at a survey point, observers waited 2 min before proceeding with the point-count to allow

for birds to adjust to observer presence. Following this 2 min period, bird observations (both

visual and vocal) were recorded over a 5 min listening period. The distance and direction to

each bird was recorded, along with the sex of the bird, if possible. General habitat

characteristics and other incidental wildlife observations were also recorded. Territorial males

were considered representative of breeding pairs. Birds observed outside of the 50 m point-

count radius, or birds observed during travel between point-count stations were recorded as

incidental observations and were excluded from relative density and diversity calculations.

However, these observations were included in discussions of detection or non-detection and

distribution of birds in the SAGD Project Study Area.

Analysis of the breeding bird survey information included determining the relative density of

songbirds among habitat types. The density of songbirds, species richness and diversity index

value were calculated for each habitat type. Density is calculated as the number of total and

individual species breeding pairs (represented by territorial males)/40 ha, an area typically used

by breeding bird researchers (Fanzreb 1981). Species richness was simply the number of

species observed within each habitat type. Diversity of birds is determined using the Shannon

Diversity Index (H), which is a measure of both the diversity and abundance of birds within each

habitat type and is calculated as:

N H = - ∑pi ln pi i=1

Where: H = Shannon Diversity Index Pi= proportion of species i relative to the total number of species

The Shannon Diversity Index is a measure of diversity in a community with N species, with pi

being the relative abundance of the ith species in a given community (measured between 0 and

1). In the calculation, the relative weight given to species with minimal observations is less than



that for species with greater proportionate observations. Hence, species encountered

infrequently are given slightly less value in the estimation of diversity than species encountered

more regularly.

2.2.2.8 Waterfowl Breeding Pair Survey

Aerial waterfowl surveys of all waterbodies (e.g., lakes, ponds, watercourses) were conducted in

June 2008 to detect nesting pairs of waterfowl within the SAGD Project Study Area. Little Horse

Creek is the major tributary through the study area although a number of small wetlands and

waterbodies were also present that may function as waterfowl breeding habitat.

Aerial waterfowl surveys were conducted using a Bell 206B Jet Ranger helicopter. A primary

navigator-observer was seated in the front left, an observer-recorder was seated in the rear left

of the aircraft and a third observer was seated in the rear right of the aircraft. Watercourses and

waterbodies were flown such that the open water channel or body was positioned mainly on the

left side of the aircraft for most effective viewing by the navigator-observer and the rear seat

secondary observer. Total coverage of the surveyed wetland was attained by flying in a

counter-clockwise direction along the shoreline of open-water ponds.

The helicopter flew at an altitude between approximately 20 and 60 m above the ground, along

the shoreline and over open water. Survey speeds ranged from a hover to 60 km/hr to ensure

accurate species identification. Survey speed and flight path were influenced by prevailing

winds. Incidental wildlife observations, such as ungulates or raptor nests were also recorded.

Results of the waterfowl pair survey were presented as total individuals, pairs and young-of-the-

year over the study area.

2.2.2.9 Incidental Wildlife Observations

Incidental wildlife observations of all target and non-target species were recorded during all

baseline surveys. Incidental wildlife were most often documented within survey plots for other

species or species groups and while traveling between survey points for both target and non-

target species groups.

2.2.3 Special Status Species

2.2.3.1 Provincial Status

The provincial status of all wildlife occurring in Alberta is ranked by ASRD. The provincial

ranking system functions as an important first step in determining which species may be

sensitive to development and which may already be declining. Once a species has been

classified as “May Be At Risk” of extirpation, it may be considered for legal designation under

the provincial Wildlife Act. It is then also often considered for federal status by the Committee



on the Status of Endangered Species in Canada (COSEWIC). Table 3 summarizes the general

status categories used to rank all wildlife species in Alberta. The rank is based on a number of

criteria, including abundance and distribution, population trend, and threats to both the species

and associated habitats.

Table 3. Definition of general status categories for wildlife in Alberta (Source: ASRD 2008).

Rank Definition

At Risk Any species known to be ‘At Risk’ after a formal detailed status assessment.

May Be At Risk Any species that ‘May Be At Risk’ of extinction or extirpation, and is therefore a candidate for detailed risk assessment

Sensitive Any species that is not at risk of extinction or extermination but might require species attention or protection to prevent it from becoming at risk.

Secure A species that is not ‘At Risk’, ‘May Be At Risk’ or ‘Sensitive’

Undetermined Any species for which insufficient information, knowledge or data is available to reliably evaluate its general status.

Not Assessed Any species that has not be examined for The General Status of Alberta Wild Species 2000 report.

Exotic / Alien Any species that has been introduced because of human activities.

Extirpated / Extinct Any species not longer thought to be present in Alberta (‘Extirpated’) or no longer believed to be present anywhere in Alberta (‘Extinct’).

Accidental / Vagrant Any species occurring infrequently and unpredictably in Alberta, i.e. outside its usual range.

2.2.3.2 Federal Status

The COSEWIC was established within the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) as an

independent body of experts responsible for identifying and assessing the status of wildlife in

Canada. Priority is given to species that might be at risk of extirpation or extinction. Species

ranked by the COSEWIC are then eligible for federal protection by the government. Table 4

defines the federal status categories used to rank wildlife species in Canada.

Table 4. Definition of federal status ranking for wildlife in Canada (Source: COSEWIC 2008).

Rank Definition

Extinct A wildlife species that no longer exists.

Exterminated A wildlife species no longer existing in the wild in Canada, but occurring elsewhere.

Endangered A wildlife species facing imminent extinction or extirpation.

Threatened A wildlife species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed.

Special Concern A wildlife species that might become ‘Threatened’ or an ‘Endangered’ species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats.

Data Deficient A wildlife species for which there is inadequate information to make a direct or indirect, assessment of its risk of extinction.

Not at Risk A wildlife species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk of extinction given the current circumstances.



2.2.3.3 Cumulative Environmental Management Association Ranking

The CEMA is a multi-stakeholder, consensus-based forum that provides a framework and

information network for cumulative effects assessment projects in the Athabasca oil sands

region of northeastern Alberta. The CEMA has identified a number of species of concern in

Alberta that have been assigned to 1 of 3 ranks: Priority 1, Priority 2 or Priority 3 (Table 5).

Priority 1 species are considered most important for future monitoring initiatives, whereas

Priority 3 species require attention but are not as critical.

Table 5. The CEMA ranking of priority wildlife species and wildlife species groups in the

Athabasca oil sands region (Source: CEMA 2000).

Priority 1 Species Priority 2 Species Priority 3 Species

Canadian toad Black bear Wood frog

Moose American beaver Gray wolf

Woodland caribou River otter Bald eagle

Muskrat Ducks and geese Common loon

Fisher/red-backed vole Ruffed grouse Deciduous forest bird community

Canada lynx / snowshoe hare Mixedwood forest bird community Wetlands forest bird community

Old-growth bird community Pileated woodpecker Pine forest bird community

Boreal owl Early successional bird community

Northern goshawk

Broad-winged hawk



3 3.0 WILDLIFE HABITATS

3.1 Overview

The SAGD Project and Access Road Study Areas are dominated by lowland black spruce

forest, much of which is mature or old-growth, and lowland shrub. Little Horse Creek and a

morainal ridge consisting mainly of mature upland coniferous and mixedwood forest also passes

through the centre of the SAGD Project Study Area. Habitat types found within the SAGD

Project and Access Road Study Areas are representative of habitats found in the general

region.

Wildlife data were summarized according to broad habitat classes, which were based on ecosite

phases classified by Geographic Dynamics Corp. (2010). Ecosite phases were grouped into

broad habitat classes based on similarities in vegetation species composition, moisture regime,

topographic position, and general value to wildlife. When describing wildlife habitat, the

structural stage of a stand was also sometimes noted (Table 6).

Table 6. Structural stage definitions used to describe stand age for each habitat type in the

SAGD Project Study Area.

Structural Stages Definition

1 Non-vegetated (bare ground/rock)

2 Herbaceous (graminoid or shrub < 20 cm)

3a Low shrub (20 cm - 1.5 m)

3b Tall shrub (1.5 m - 5 m)

4 Pole sapling (single canopy)

5 Young forest (single or diverse canopy)

6 Mature forest (primary/secondary canopies)

7 Old growth forest (diverse canopies, snags)

Nine habitat types representing 19 ecosite phases and 4 vegetation classes were identified in

the SAGD Project and Access Road Study Areas. Lowland treed habitat, which is the most

common habitat type in the region, is characterized by black spruce and tamarack forests and is

preferred habitat for woodland caribou. Shrub species in this habitat type include Labrador tea,

dwarf birch, and bog cranberry, with reindeer lichen making up a portion of the ground cover.



Although bird and mammal diversity is typically lower in this habitat type, its overall importance

to wildlife is high because of its value as foraging habitat for woodland caribou.

Lowland shrub habitat includes shrubby fens, swamps and marshes that are dominated by

willow, dwarf birch, black spruce and Labrador tea. This habitat supports a diverse bird

community, including Canada warblers, white-throated sparrows, and Wilson’s warblers as well

as Canadian toads. It is also used by moose, woodland caribou, black bear and other

mammals. Lowland tree and shrub habitats are interspersed throughout most of the area.

White spruce forest dominates upland portions of the SAGD Project Study Area adjacent to

Little Horse Creek. This habitat is composed primarily of white spruce with small components of

other coniferous and deciduous trees, including jack pine, balsam fir, trembling aspen and

balsam poplar. White spruce stands (especially mature and old growth stands) are important

for a variety of special status songbirds including bay-breasted warblers, Cape May warbler,

western tanager, and black-throated green warbler. Additionally, this habitat provides suitable

denning and foraging opportunities for fisher, marten and lynx, as well as nesting habitat for

northern goshawk and barred owl.

Mixedwood forests of trembling aspen and white spruce support a high diversity of songbirds,

and are particularly important to special status songbird species such as the western tanager,

black-throated green warbler and Cape May warbler. Mixedwood habitats, especially mature

and old-growth stands, are also important for moose, black bear and pileated woodpeckers.

Mixed coniferous stands are dominated by black spruce and/or jack pine, with a minor

component of white spruce and an understory consisting mainly of Labrador tea, bog cranberry

black spruce and blueberry. Mixed coniferous habitats are generally not rich in songbird

diversity but they are a preferred habitat type for woodland caribou and are used by black bear.

Deciduous stands are uncommon in the area and are dominated by trembling aspen, although

white birch and balsam poplar are also present. Bird diversity within this habitat is typically high,

especially in mature and old-growth stands. Pileated woodpecker, ruffed grouse, broad-winged

hawk, northern goshawk, ovenbird and American redstart are just a few bird species likely to be

found here. Black bear and moose also use deciduous dominated stands for foraging.

Anthropogenic habitat includes existing well pads, pipelines, utility lines, clearcuts, and other

areas of human-related disturbances. This habitat type generally supports lower numbers of

wildlife but may be used by species tolerant of open habitats and edges including deer, some

small mammals, white-throated sparrows and dark-eyed juncos.

Sedge meadows are rare in the study area and are confined mainly to areas adjacent to Little

Horse Creek. These habitats are characterized by open fens with abundant sedges, reed



grasses and moss. Several grassland bird species occur within or around the edges of these

meadows including Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrow, Lincoln’s sparrow, Le Conte’s sparrow, rusty

blackbirds and sandhill cranes. Sedge meadows often contain open water and ponds that

provide important habitat for amphibians and waterfowl.

Water includes shallow open water and small ponds and lakes as well the vegetated margins of

these waterbodies. A variety of wildlife species use this habitat type including Canadian toads,

waterfowl and waterbirds, shorebirds, beaver, and muskrat.

3.2 SAGD Project Study Area

The SAGD Project Study Area is dominated by lowland treed and lowland shrub habitats, which

collectively account for 66% (or 2,243 ha) of the study area (Table 7; Figure 2). White spruce is

the next most common habitat type, but is generally limited to upland areas adjacent to Little

Horse Creek. Mixedwood and coniferous mixed stands together comprise 11.3% of the SAGD

Project Study Area. Sedge meadow is uncommon (77 ha or 2.3%) and is restricted mainly to

areas adjacent to Little Horse Creek. Deciduous stands make up only 1.5% of the study area

and are also associated with Little Horse Creek, while waterbodies and anthropogenic habitat

are the least common types in the study area (Table 6). A small portion of the SAGD Project

Study Area (0.8%) could not be assigned to an ecosite phase (northwest portion of the study

area along Little Horse Creek) and was labelled ‘Indeterminate’. These communities are

generally in early stages of regeneration (often due to fire) and it is very difficult to determine

climax ecosite phases.



Table 7. Areal extent of habitat types in the SAGD Project Study Area.

Habitat Types Ecosite Phases

Area (ha)

Cover (%)

Description

Deciduous d1, e1, f1 51 1.5 Aspen dominated with some balsam poplar; shrubs include prickly rose, willow, cranberry, and dogwood.

Sedge meadow k3 77 2.3 Graminoid fens with sedges, reed grass and moss.

Mixedwood d2, e2, f2 180 5.3 White spruce and aspen dominated with birch and balsam poplar components; high diversity of shrubs.

Mixed coniferous c1, g1 205 6.0 Black spruce and jack pine with Labrador tea and bog cranberry.

White spruce d3, e3, f3, h1 511 14.9 White spruce dominated with balsam fir/deciduous component; understory includes prickly rose and twin-flower.

Lowland shrub i2, j2, k2 997 29.1 Shrubby bogs and fens with Labrador tea, black spruce, dwarf birch and willow.

Lowland treed i1, j1, k1 1,246 36.5 Treed bogs/fens, black spruce/tamarack dominated, with Labrador tea, dwarf birch, and bog cranberry.

Indeterminate F0 26 0.8 Ecophase cannot be determined, generally due to early stage of community regeneration.

Waterbody NWL 9 0.2 Open water.

Anthropogenic CIP, CIU, CIW 118 3.4 Well pads, pipelines, cutblocks and other cleared areas.

Totals 3,420 100.0



3.3 Access Road Study Area

The proposed Algar Lake access road passes through habitats similar to those found in the

SAGD Project Study Area, although habitat availability is somewhat different. As with the

SAGD Project Study Area, the Access Road Study Area is dominated by lowland shrub and

lowland tree types, which together account for over 60% (or 836 ha) of the area (Table 7; Figure

3). White spruce is also relatively common in the Access Road Study Area as it is in the SAGD

Project Study Area. The Access Road Study Area has 88 ha (6.5%) of habitat that has been

previously disturbed; mainly by an existing pipeline, which the proposed access road will

parallel, as well as existing well pads, cutblocks, and a gravel pit. Sedge meadows and

deciduous habitat each make up a very small proportion of the Access Road Study Area (<5%).

There are no waterbodies in the Access Road Study Area.

Table 8. Areal extent of habitat types in the Access Road Study Area.

Habitat Types Ecosite Phases Area (ha)

Cover (%) Description

Sedge meadow k3 30 2.2 Graminoid fens with sedges, reed grass and moss

Deciduous d1, f1 52 3.8 Aspen dominated with some balsam poplar, shrubs include prickly rose, willow, cranberry, and dogwood

Mixed coniferous c1, g1 98 7.2 Black spruce and jack pine with Labrador tea and bog cranberry

Mixedwood d2, e2, f2 108 8.0 White spruce and aspen dominated with birch and balsam poplar components; high diversity of shrubs

White spruce d3, e3, f3, h1 140 10.4 White spruce dominated with balsam fir and deciduous component; understory includes prickly rose and twin-flower

Lowland shrub i2, j2, k2 516 38.2 Shrubby bogs and fens with Labrador tea, black spruce, dwarf birch and willow

Lowland treed i1, j1, k1 320 23.7 Treed bogs and fens, black spruce and tamarack dominated, with Labrador tea, dwarf birch, and bog cranberry

Anthropogenic AIG, CIP, CIU, CIW 88 6.5 Well pads, pipelines, cutblocks and other cleared areas

Totals 1,352 100.0



4 4.0 WILDIFE USE

4.1 Existing Information

A search of the ANHIC database revealed a known occurrence of woodland caribou in and

around the SAGD Project and Access Road Study Areas. A similar search of the FWMIS

database resulted in no known occurrences of tracked species within either study areas.

However, a number of species have been recorded within 10 km of the study areas, including;

bay-breasted warbler, black-backed woodpecker, broad-winged hawk, Canada lynx, Cape May

warbler, common yellowthroat, fisher, great gray owl, northern goshawk, pileated woodpecker,

western tanager, and woodland caribou. These species can be expected to occur in the SAGD

Project and Access Road Study Areas based on habitats that occur there. It should be noted,

however, that a lack of records of other species in the region does not necessarily mean they do

not occur in the area, but may simply reflect a paucity of data.

4.2 Field Surveys

4.2.1 Wildlife Habitat Assessment

Twenty-seven wildlife habitat assessment plots were surveyed in 9 habitat types within the

SAGD Project Study Area (Figure 4; Table 9).

Table 9. Number of wildlife habitat assessment points by habitat type in the SAGD Project

Study Area.

Habitat Type No. of Survey Sites

Deciduous 1

Sedge meadow 2

Mixedwood 4

Mixed coniferous 3

White spruce 4

Lowland shrub 4

Lowland treed 5

Indeterminate 3

Anthropogenic 1

Total 27



The habitat rankings indicate that habitat quality across the SAGD Project Study Area is

variable, but that lowland shrub, lowland treed and anthropogenic habitats have low suitability

for most wildlife species (woodland caribou were assessed separately below) (Table 10). Most

habitat types were ranked as moderate to low quality for moose, with the exception of some

lowland shrub stands. Habitat for black bear was also relatively scarce in the study area,

although spring foraging habitat was available in some indeterminate, mixed coniferous and

lowland treed habitats. Fall foraging was only available in deciduous sand mixedwood habitats.

Moderate to high quality habitat for fisher was available in most habitat types, with only lowland

shrub providing no winter habitat for this species. Beaver habitat was relatively scarce with

deciduous, mixedwood, sedge meadows and lowland treed habitats providing the best habitat

available. Canadian toad habitat was also relatively scarce in the study area. Sedge meadows,

lowland shrub and indeterminate provided the best habitat for this species.

Deciduous habitat provided the best quality habitat for a number of bird species, including black-

throated green warbler, northern goshawk, pileated woodpecker and ruffed grouse; while

mixedwood and white spruce habitats were considered to be of high quality for the Cape May

warbler (Table 10). Yellow rail habitat was available only in lowland habitats, including treed

and shrubby lowlands and sedge meadows, as well as some indeterminate habitat. Mixedwood

habitat provided the best quality habitat for barred owl, while moderate quality habitat was

available in most habitat types expect for lowland shrub and white spruce.

Overall, habitat quality for woodland caribou was greatest in mixedwood habitat, followed by

white spruce habitat (Table 11). Mixedwood habitats generally ranked high for tree and canopy

type, with semi-open mature forest, and cover, ranging from 50% to 70% canopy cover. Mixed

coniferous habitats ranked highest for stand type, with black spruce and jack pine making up

much of the stands. Moderate amounts of deadfall contributed to the high ranking for white

spruce habitat, as did food cover, with high coverage of herbs, lichen and moss. The single

disturbed site that was surveyed was a clearcut that also ranked highly for woodland caribou

habitat. This site had high diversity and a high percent cover of food, including shrubs, moss,

lichen and herbs; although scores for stand type, cover and deadfall were ranked the lowest.

Sedge meadow, indeterminate and deciduous habitats were rated the lowest overall for

woodland caribou. Sedge meadow and indeterminate habitats generally had poor rankings for

cover requirements, including stand type, tree and canopy type, and cover. Deciduous habitats

had low rankings for overall diversity and deadfall, and moderate rankings for all other habitat

requirements.

4.2.2 Winter Tracking Survey

Forty-nine winter transects were surveyed in February 2008, for a total survey effort of 12,250 m

in 8 habitat types (Table 12; Figure 5).



Table 10. Summary of habitat rankings for key wildlife species by habitat type in the SAGD Project Study Area.

Wildlife Species Habitat Requirements

Habitat Types

Deciduous Anthropogenic Sedge

Meadow Indeterminate Mixedwood

Mixed Coniferous

White Spruce

Lowland Shrub

Lowland Treed

Moose Foraging 3 3 5 - 6 5 3 - 5 4 - 6 4 - 5 1 - 6 3 - 6

Black bear Spring Foraging 3 2 2 - 3 1 - 4 2 - 3 1 - 4 3 - 4 2 - 4 1 - 4

Black bear Fall Foraging 1 2 4 4 1 - 3 4 3 - 4 4 3 - 4

Fisher Winter 2 2 4 2 - 4 2 2 - 4 1 - 2 4 2 - 4

American beaver Foraging 1 4 1 - 4 3 1 - 4 4 4 2 - 4 1 - 4

Canadian toad Breeding/Hibernating 3 4 1 - 4 1 - 4 2 - 4 2 - 3 2 - 4 1 - 4 2 - 4

Cape May warbler Breeding 4 3 4 3 - 4 1 - 3 2 1 - 2 3 - 4 2 - 4

Black-throated green warbler Breeding 1 3 4 1 - 4 1 - 3 3 - 4 3 - 4 4 1 - 4

Northern goshawk Breeding 1 4 4 2 - 4 1 - 2 2 - 4 3 - 4 4 3 - 4

Pileated woodpecker Breeding 1 2 4 2 - 4 1 - 3 3 3 - 4 4 1 - 4

Yellow rail Breeding 4 4 1 1 - 4 4 4 4 1 - 4 1 - 4

Barred owl Breeding 2 2 4 2 - 4 1 - 2 2 - 4 3 3 - 4 2 - 4

Ruffed grouse Breeding 1 2 4 3 - 4 1 - 3 3 - 4 4 3 - 4 3 - 4



Table 11. Summary of habitat quality rankings for woodland caribou by habitat type in the


Habitat Types

Habitat Requirements

Totals Stand Type

Tree/ Canopy

Cover Food

Diversity Food Cover

Deadfall Diversity

Sedge meadow 1 1 1 3 7 8 6.4 27.4

Indeterminate 2.7 4 3 3.7 8.3 8.7 8 38.4

Deciduous 7 8 8 8 8 3 1 43

Lowland shrub 7.5 7 7.25 6.25 6.5 9.5 3 47

Lowland treed 6.8 6.2 7.8 6 6.2 9.6 5.8 48.4

Mixed coniferous 10 7.7 7 6 6.7 5.3 6 48.7

Anthropogenic 4 9 5 10 10 3 8 49

White spruce 8 8 7.25 6.5 7.25 10 4 51

Mixedwood 7.5 9.5 9.25 8.5 6.25 8 6.5 55.5

Table 12. Winter tracking survey effort by habitat type in the SAGD Project Study Area.

Habitat type Survey Effort (m) % of Total Effort

Sedge meadow 400 3.3

Mixed coniferous 525 4.3

Deciduous 625 5.1

Disturbed 1,000 8.2

Mixedwood 1,175 9.6

Lowland shrub 1,800 14.7

White spruce 2,300 18.8

Lowland treed 4,425 36.1

Total 12,250 100.1

4.2.2.1 Furbearers

Nine species of furbearers, including terrestrial and aquatic furbearers and carnivores, were

recorded in the SAGD Project Study Area during the February 2008 winter track count survey

(Table 13).

Red Squirrel

Red squirrel was the most abundant furbearer recorded during winter track count survey. A

total of 198 red squirrel tracks were observed for an overall track density of 0.07 tracks/km

(Table 13). Track densities were highest in deciduous habitat, followed by mixed coniferous

and white spruce habitats. No red squirrel tracks were observed in lowland treed or sedge

meadow habitats.



In other winter tracking surveys conducted in the region, red squirrels were also relatively

abundant. For example, red squirrel track densities averaged 1.3 tracks/km/day in the McKay

River Expansion study area, and were common in deciduous, lowland shrub and coniferous

habitat (Petro Canada 2005).

Table 13. Track densities of furbearers recorded during winter track surveys in the SAGD

Project Study Area.

Habitat American

Marten Coyote Ermine Fisher

Least Weasel

Lynx Red

Squirrel Snowshoe

Hare

Mixedwood 0.39 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.61 0.21

Anthropogenic 0.21 0.00 1.19 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.63 3.08

Lowland treed 0.15 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.05

White spruce 0.38 0.01 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.84 0.06

Sedge meadow 0.42 0.42 2.50 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.42

Lowland shrub 0.32 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.04

Deciduous 0.58 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.58 0.00 15.46 0.29

Mixed coniferous 1.06 0.00 0.32 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.37

Overall 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.03

American Marten

American marten were relatively abundant in the SAGD Project Study Area, with a track density

of 0.05 tracks/km/day (Table 13). Track density was highest in mixed coniferous habitat,

followed by deciduous habitat. American marten tracks were recorded in all habitat types

although track densities were relatively low in anthropogenic and lowland treed habitats.

American marten were also detected during track surveys at the nearby McKay River Expansion

project in deciduous and lowland treed habitats, with track densities ranging from 1.3

tracks/km/day to 0.3 tracks/km/day, respectively (Petro Canada 2005). Marten and fisher tracks

were combined in the Meadow Creek study area, for an overall density of 1.4 tracks/km/day.

Tracks were found in mixedwood and deciduous habitats (Petro Canada 2001).

Ermine

Ermine tracks were recorded in all habitat types, and the overall track density was 0.04

tracks/km/day across the SAGD Project Study Area (Table 13). Track densities were highest in

sedge meadow habitat, followed by anthropogenic habitat. Low track densities were recorded

in lowland treed and lowland shrub habitats.



Snowshoe Hare

While snowshoe hares were recorded in all habitat types, they do not appear to be abundant in

the SAGD Project Study Area since overall track density was only 0.03 tracks/km/day (Table

13). This likely indicates that the snowshoe hare population was in the low phase of the

population cycle during the February 2008 winter track survey. The highest track densities were

recorded in anthropogenic habitats while lower densities were recorded in lowland treed and

lowland shrub habitats.

At the McKay River Expansion study area, snowshoe hare were the most commonly observed

species during track surveys, with an overall track density of 17.6 tracks/km/day. Densities

were highest in mixed coniferous and deciduous habitats (Petro Canada 2005). In the Meadow

Creek study area, snowshoe densities were very high, with overall density recorded at 48.77

tracks/km/day, occurring mainly in mixed coniferous, mixed coniferous and lowland shrub

habitat (Petro Canada 2001).

Least Weasel

Least weasel tracks were also observed relatively infrequently in the SAGD Project Study Area.

Overall track density in the study area was 0.02 tracks/km/day (Table 13). Track density was

highest in anthropogenic habitat while no tracks were recorded in mixed coniferous habitats. In

comparison, least weasels were only recorded in deciduous habitat in the McKay River

Expansion study area, for an overall density of 0.2 tracks/km/day (Petro Canada 2005).

Coyote

Only 4 coyote tracks were observed in the SAGD Project Study Area, resulting in an overall

track density of 0.002 tracks/km/day (Table 13). Coyote tracks were observed in lowland treed,

sedge meadow and white spruce habitats. In comparison, most coyote tracks recorded in the

McKay River Expansion study area were in deciduous and lowland shrub habitat, with track

densities ranging from between 1.3 and 1.1 tracks/km/day, respectively (Petro Canada 2005).

Coyote were also observed in the Great Divide study area (Connacher Oil and Gas 2005)

Lynx

Lynx tracks were observed only in lowland shrub habitats, where a track density of 0.04

tracks/km/day was recorded (Table 13). In comparison, lynx tracks were most abundant in

deciduous and mixed coniferous habitats in the McKay River Expansion study area where track

densities ranged from 0.8 to 0.4 tracks/km/day (Petro Canada 2005). The overall track density

was slightly lower in the Meadow Creek study area where only 0.34 tracks/km/day were

recorded primarily in mixed coniferous and lowland shrub habitats. Canada lynx were also

considered moderately likely to occur in the Orion Oil Whitesands study area (Orion Oil 2003).



Fisher

Fisher was relatively uncommon in the SAGD Project Study Area, and tracks were recorded

only in mixed coniferous and deciduous habitats, where densities were 0.21 and 0.19

tracks/km/day, respectively (Table 13). In comparison, fisher was recorded mainly in deciduous

habitat in the McKay River Expansion study area, with track densities ranging from 0.3 to 1.7

tracks/km/day (Petro Canada 2005). Marten and fisher tracks were combined in the Meadow

Creek study area, for a total track density of 1.4 tracks/km/day. Tracks were observed in

mixedwood and deciduous habitats (Petro Canada 2001). Fisher was determined to have a low

probability of occurrence in the Whitesands study area (Orion Oil 2003).

4.2.2.2 Grouse

Grouse (spruce grouse, ruffed grouse and ptarmigan) were observed in all habitat types in the

SAGD Project Study Area except for sedge meadow (Table 14). The overall track density was

0.04 tracks/km/day but was highest in deciduous habitat, followed by lowland shrub and

anthropogenic habitat.

Table 14. Densities of grouse tracks by habitat type recorded during winter track surveys in the


Habitat Grouse

Anthropogenic 0.25

Deciduous 2.59

Lowland shrub 0.70

Lowland treed 0.02

Mixed coniferous 0.17

Mixedwood 0.07

Sedge meadow 0.00

White spruce 0.15

Overall 0.04

Grouse tracks were relatively common in the McKay River Expansion study area, with densities

ranging from 0.1 to 3.8 tracks/km/day, mainly in deciduous habitat (Petro Canada 2005). The

density of grouse tracks in the Meadow Creek study area was 0.34 tracks/km/day, occurring

primarily in mixed coniferous, mixedwood, and treed bog habitats (Petro Canada 2001). Only

ruffed grouse were observed in the Connacher Great Divide study area (Connacher Oil and Gas

2005). Sharp-tailed grouse were determined to have a moderate probability of occurrence in

the Whitesands study area (Orion Oil 2003).



4.2.2.3 Ungulates

Only moose and deer (or their sign) were recorded during the winter track and winter aerial

ungulate surveys (Table 15). While woodland caribou were not detected within the SAGD

Project Study Area during the winter wildlife surveys, their sign was recorded incidentally during

other wildlife surveys conducted in the area.

Deer

Deer were not common in the SAGD Project Study Area during the winter tracking surveys.

Only 2 deer tracks were recorded in lowland shrub and mixedwood habitats, where track

densities were 0.02 and 0.03 tracks/km/day, respectively (Table 15). In comparison, deer were

observed in white spruce habitat, with a track density of 5.6 tracks/km/day in the McKay River

Expansion study area (Petro Canada 2005), but no deer were observed in the Meadow Creek

or Great Divide study areas (Petro Canada 2001; Connacher Oil and Gas 2005).

Table 15. Track densities of ungulates recorded during winter track surveys in the SAGD

Project Study Area.

Habitat Deer Moose

Mixedwood 0.03 0.08

Anthropogenic 0.00 0.29

Lowland treed 0.00 0.02

White spruce 0.00 0.19

Sedge meadow 0.00 0.42

Lowland shrub 0.02 0.25

Deciduous 0.00 2.03

Mixed coniferous 0.00 0.00

Overall 0.00 0.02

Moose

Moose were observed in all habitat types in the SAGD Project Study Area except for mixed

coniferous habitat, for an overall track density of 0.02 tracks/km/day (Table 15). Moose were

most abundant in deciduous habitat, followed by the sedge meadow and anthropogenic types.

In the McKay River Expansion study area, moose were recorded in white spruce and deciduous

habitat (average track density of 2.0 tracks/km/day) (Petro Canada 2005). Track density in the

Meadow Creek study area was 0.52 tracks/km/day, and moose were observed in deciduous

and lowland treed habitats.

Woodland Caribou

No sign of woodland caribou was recorded in the SAGD Project Study Area during the winter

tracking survey. However, woodland caribou sign was observed in the study area during the



habitat assessments, and caribou scats were recorded during the raptor and amphibian

surveys. While the Algar Lake SAGD Project is not located within a defined woodland caribou

range, it is centrally located between Algar (approximately 10 km) and the Egg-Pony

(approximately 11.5 km) herds of the East Side of Athabasca (ESAR) caribou range (Figure 6).

In comparison, while no woodland caribou sign were recorded in the McKay River Expansion

study area, they were commonly detected in the Meadow Creek study area (0.35 caribou/km2)

(Petro Canada 2005; Petro Canada 2001). Caribou sign was also detected in the Great Divide

study area (Connacher Oil and Gas 2005). Woodland caribou was determined to have a low

probability of occurrence in the Whitesands study area (Orion Oil 2003).

4.2.3 Aerial Ungulate Survey

A winter aerial ungulate survey of the SAGD Project Study Area was completed in February

2008 (Figure 7). One moose was observed during foraging in a recent clearcut for a corrected

density of 0.03 moose/km2, but no deer or woodland caribou were detected. An aerial ungulate

survey in the Meadow Creek study area detected 26 moose for a population density of 0.21/km2

(Petro Canada 2001). During the survey, moose were recorded in lowland treed, mixedwood

and deciduous habitats. No deer or woodland caribou were detected during this survey

4.2.4 Owl Survey

Eleven owl stations were surveyed in April 2008, covering 1,548 ha of the SAGD Project Study

Area. All habitat types were sampled during but the survey stations were concentrated in

mature upland habitat where owls were expected to occur (Figure 8, Table 16). No owls were

recorded in the study area during the nocturnal owl survey. Temperatures during the survey

ranged from +1ºC to -4ºC overnight, and wind was moderate (> 28 kph, with gusts) with no

precipitation. Conditions during the survey were considered too windy for effective detection of

owls, and therefore owls may have been missed within the study area.

Owl surveys in the nearby McKay River study area detected only a single boreal owl in

mixedwood habitat (Petro Canada 2005). Two boreal owls were also detected at the Meadow

Creek study area (Petro Canada 2001). No boreal owls were detected in the Great Divide study

area (Connacher Oil and Gas 2005). Both barred owls and great gray owls were considered to

have a low probability of occurrence in the Whitesands study area (Orion Oil 2003).



Table 16. Area surveyed by habitat type during the nocturnal owl surveys in the SAGD Project

Study Area.

Habitat Type Area Surveyed (ha) % of Total Area Surveyed

Anthropogenic 73 4.7

Deciduous 50 3.2

Indeterminate 26 1.7

Lowland shrub 342 22.1

Lowland treed 316 20.4


Mixedwood 158 10.2

Sedge meadow 48 3.1

Waterbody 8 0.5

White spruce 412 26.6

Total 1,548 100.1

4.2.5 Raptor Survey

Five raptor stations were surveyed in May 2008, covering 352 ha of the SAGD Project Study

Area. All habitats were sampled except for waterbodies, but stations were established only in

mature upland habitats where raptors were expected to occur (Table 17; Figure 9). No raptors

were recorded in the study area during the survey even though survey conditions were

considered suitable for detecting raptors. Temperature during the day was approximately 25ºC,

wind was light (>11 km/hr) with no precipitation, and noise levels were generally quiet.

Table 17. Habitat types sampled during the diurnal raptor survey in the SAGD Project Study

Area.

Habitat Type Area Surveyed (ha) % of Total Area Surveyed


Deciduous 22 6.2





Mixedwood 85 24.2

Sedge meadow 2 0.6


Total 352 100.0

No diurnal raptors were detected in the McKay River study area, although 2 northern goshawks

and 3 broad-winged hawks were incidentally observed during other surveys (Petro Canada

2005). Northern goshawks were also observed in the Meadow Creek study area (Petro Canada



2001). Northern goshawks and broad-winged hawks were considered to have a low probability

of occurrence in the Whitesands study area (Orion Oil 2003).

4.2.6 Amphibian and Yellow Rail Surveys

Five amphibian and rail listening stations were surveyed in the SAGD Project Study Area along

the morainal ridge that parallels Little Horse Creek. Because of high water levels and safety

concerns with conducting nocturnal surveys, access to lowland shrub and treed habitats was

limited. However, Canadian toad breeding calls can be heard by observers up to 1,000 m away

(AXYS 1999, 2001a, 2001b). With this listening radius, 9 habitat types covering 889 ha of study

area were surveyed (Table 18; Figure 10). Wood frogs and boreal chorus frogs were the only

amphibian species recorded in the study area. No yellow rails were detected during the survey.

Canadian toads and yellow rails were recorded in the McKay River study area (Petro Canada

2005). Yellow rails were found in sedge meadows, their preferred habitat in the boreal forest.

At Meadow Creek, Canadian toads were not recorded and yellow rail surveys were not

conducted (Petro Canada 2001). Canadian toads had a low probability of occurrence in the

Whitesands study area, while yellow rails were not assessed (Orion Oil 2003).

Table 18. Habitat types sampled during amphibian and yellow rail surveys in the SAGD Project

Study Area.

Habitat types Area Surveyed (ha) % of Total Area Surveyed


Deciduous 38 4.3





Mixedwood 126 14.2

Sedge meadow 26 2.9


Total 889 100.0

4.2.7 Songbird Surveys

Breeding bird surveys were conducted on June 18, 2008 at 40 stations in the SAGD Project

Study Area (Figure 11). Of the 42 species detected during the breeding bird surveys (Table 19),

7 were not considered songbirds. Of the 35 songbird species recorded, 5 are listed as

“Sensitive” in Alberta (ASRD 2005).



Table 19. Bird species recorded during the songbird survey in the SAGD Project Study Area.

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name

Alder flycatcher Empidonax alnorum Northern flicker Colaptes auratus American redstart Setophaga ruticilla Ovenbird Seiurus noveboracensis American robin Turdus migratorius Palm warbler Dendroica palmarum Barred owl 1 Strix varia Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Bay-breasted warbler Dendroica castanea Pine siskin Carduelis pinus Black-and-white warbler Mniotilta varia Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis Black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapilla Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus Blue-headed vireo Vireo solitarius Rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus Boreal chickadee Poecile hudsonica Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula Cape May warbler Dendroica tigrina Solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina Swainson's thrush Catharus ustulatus Common raven Corvus corax Tennessee warbler Vermivora peregrina Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Western tanager Piranga ludoviciana Connecticut warbler Oporornis agilis White-throated sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis White-winged crossbill Loxia leucoptera Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa Wilson's snipe Gallingao delicata Gray jay Perisoreus canadensis Wilson's warbler Wilsonia pusilla Green-winged teal Anas crecca Winter wren Troglodytes troglodytes Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia Le Conte's sparrow Ammodramus leconteii Yellow-breasted sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius Least flycatcher Empidonax minimus Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata

1 Species listed as sensitive in Alberta are in bold (ASRD 2005).

4.2.7.1 Songbird Density and Species Richness

The overall density of songbird territories in the SAGD Project Study Area was 238 breeding

territories/40 ha (Table 20). This density of breeding songbirds is relatively high compared to

other densities in similar habitats in northeastern Alberta. For example, 194 breeding

territories/40 ha were recorded east of the Athabasca River in the oil sands region (IORVL

2006), 202 breeding territories/40 ha were recorded in central Alberta west of the Athabasca

River (AXYS 1999b), and 183 breeding territories/40 ha were recorded east of the Athabasca

River (AXYS 2001a). Other reported densities in the region included 173 breeding territories

south of Fort McMurray (AXYS 2000), 163 breeding territories/40 ha southwest of Fort McKay

(AXYS 1999c), and 142 breeding territories/40 ha in the Cold Lake area (AXYS 1999d).

Tennessee warblers and chipping sparrows were the most commonly detected species in the

SAGD Project Study Area (Table 20). Other relatively abundant species included yellow-

rumped warbler, ovenbird, Cape May warbler and pine siskin. Of these species, the Cape May

warbler is considered “Sensitive” and therefore, indicates the presence of key habitat (i.e., white

spruce forest). Species that were seldom encountered included the American redstart, white-

winged crossbill and Connecticut warbler. Similar patterns of songbird density have been

recorded in northeastern Alberta. For example, Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited (2006)

reported 43 species of songbirds with Tennessee warbler, chipping sparrow and ovenbird the



most abundant. Similarly, Husky Energy (2004) reported 47 species of songbird, with

Tennessee warbler, dark-eyed junco and ovenbird being the most abundant.

Table 20. Songbird densities in the SAGD Project Study Area.

Common Name Density (territories/40 ha) Common Name Density

(territories/40 ha)

Tennessee warbler 81.5 Rose-breasted grosbeak 3.8

Chipping sparrow 30.6 Ruby-crowned kinglet 3.8

Yellow-rumped warbler 12.7 Western tanager 3.8

Ovenbird 11.5 Alder flycatcher 2.5

Cape May warbler 10.2 American robin 2.5

Pine siskin 10.2 Least flycatcher 2.5

Bay-breasted warbler 6.4 Winter wren 2.5

Swainson's thrush 6.4 American redstart 1.3

White-throated sparrow 6.4 Black-capped chickadee 1.3

Blue-headed vireo 5.1 Boreal chickadee 1.3

Dark-eyed junco 5.1 Common raven 1.3

Black-and-white warbler 3.8 Common yellowthroat 1.3

Golden-crowned kinglet 3.8 Connecticut warbler 1.3

Palm warbler 3.8 Gray jay 1.3

Red-breasted nuthatch 3.8 White-winged crossbill 1.3

Red-eyed vireo 3.8 Yellow warbler 1.3

Breeding songbird density was highest in deciduous forest (395 territories/40 ha) followed by

indeterminate (357 territories/40 ha) and mixedwood habitats (348 territories/40 ha) (Table 21).

Ovenbirds and Tennessee warblers were the most common species in deciduous forest, while

Tennessee warblers and pine siskins were relatively abundant in mixedwood stands. Sedge

meadows also supported a relatively high density of songbirds and moderate species richness,

even though only 2 sites were surveyed. The common yellowthroat was unique to the sedge

meadow habitat type. The lowest songbird density was recorded in anthropogenic habitat,

which shared the lowest species richness value with lowland treed and indeterminate habitats.

4.2.7.2 Songbird Diversity

Songbird diversity was highest in deciduous and mixedwood habitat (Table 22), indicating that

these habitat types supported not only a high number of individuals but also an abundance of

species. White spruce forest and lowland shrub also had relatively high diversity indices.

These results suggest that the upland forest is extremely valuable for birds in the SAGD Project

Study Area. Habitats with low diversity included anthropogenic and lowland treed. Few birds

were observed in indeterminate and sedge meadow habitats, mainly because these habitats are

rare on the landscape and few survey points were established there.



Table 21. Density and species richness of songbirds by habitat type in the SAGD Project Study

Area.

Habitat Description No. of Sites Surveyed

Species Richness

Density (territories/40 ha)

White spruce White spruce dominated with balsam fir/deciduous component; understory includes prickly rose and twin-flower

9 15 255

Lowland shrub Shrubby bogs and fens with Labrador tea, black spruce, dwarf birch and willow

8 9 153

Mixedwood White spruce and aspen dominated with birch and balsam poplar components; high diversity of shrubs

6 18 348

Anthropogenic Wellpads, pipelines, cutblocks, other cleared areas 5 6 132

Lowland treed Treed bogs/fens, black spruce/tamarack dominated, with Labrador tea, dwarf birch, and bog cranberry

5 6 153

Deciduous Aspen dominated with some balsam poplar, shrubs include prickly rose, willow, cranberry, and dogwood

4 13 395

Indeterminate Ecophase cannot be determined, generally due to early stage of community regeneration

1 6 357

Sedge meadow Graminoid fens with sedges, reed grass and moss 2 7 280

4.2.8 Waterbird Surveys

Five species were identified during the aerial waterbird surveys conducted on June 18, 2008

within the SAGD Project Study Area (Table 23). Canada geese and spotted sandpipers were

observed along Little Horse Creek, while the other species were observed at small wetlands. In

addition to these species, a solitary sandpiper and Wilson’s snipe were observed during the

songbird surveys conducted the same day.

Table 22. Songbird diversity by habitat type in the SAGD Project Study Area.

Habitat Description No. of Sites Surveyed

No. of Birds Observed Diversity Index

White spruce White spruce dominated with balsam fir/deciduous component; understory includes prickly rose and twin-flower

9 45 0.98

Lowland shrub Shrubby bogs and fens with Labrador tea, black spruce, dwarf birch and willow

8 24 0.81

Mixedwood White spruce and aspen dominated with birch and balsam poplar components; high diversity of shrubs

6 41 1.03

Anthropogenic Wellpads, pipelines, cutblocks, other cleared areas 5 13 0.61

Lowland treed Treed bogs/fens, black spruce/tamarack dominated, with Labrador tea, dwarf birch, and bog cranberry

5 15 0.63

Deciduous Aspen dominated, some balsam poplar, shrubs include prickly rose, willow, cranberry, and dogwood

4 31 1.05

Indeterminate Ecophase cannot be determined, generally due to early stage of community regeneration

1 7 0.76

Sedge meadow Graminoid fens with sedges, reed grass and moss 2 11 0.72



Table 23. Waterfowl, waterbirds and shorebirds recorded during surveys conducted in the


Common Name Scientific Name No. Observed Comments

American wigeon Anas americana 1

Common loon Gavia immer 1

Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes 3

Canada goose Branta canadensis 12 2 pairs each with 4 goslings

Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia 4

4.3 Special Status Wildlife Species

Special status wildlife species that may occur in the SAGD Project and Access Road Study

Areas were identified during a review of various information sources (ASRD 2005, CEMA 2001,

and COSEWIC 2008). Based on this review, 50 special status wildlife species may occur

including Canadian toad, pileated woodpecker and woodland caribou (Table 24). Thirteen of

these species have already been recorded in the SAGD Project Study Area during surveys

conducted in 2007 and 2008.

The potential occurrence of woodland caribou in the Algar Lake SAGD Project study area is of

particular importance because it is considered ‘At Risk’ in Alberta and ‘Threatened’ in Canada.

Woodland caribou in the boreal forest of northeastern Alberta are associated with peatland bogs

and fens (Anderson 1999, Bradshaw et al. 1995, Fuller and Keith 1981, Stuart-Smith et al.

1997). Caribou in this region generally use upland habitats less frequently, and their use of

uplands decreases exponentially with distance from peatlands (Fuller and Keith 1981,

Schneider et al. 2000). The SAGD Project Study Area and Access Road Study Area, as well as

the surrounding area are characterized by large areas of lowland treed and shrubby peatlands.

A summary of woodland caribou data compiled by Westworth Environmental Associates Ltd.

(2002) revealed no historical observations of caribou in the study areas but a number of

woodland caribou have been recorded immediately west and south of the SAGD Project and

Access Road Study Areas. While the Algar Lake SAGD study areas do not overlap with any

known caribou management zones, they are close to the Algar and Egg-Pony management

zones (10 km and 11.5 km away, respectively) and evidence of woodland caribou was recorded

in the SAGD Project Study Area during wildlife surveys conducted in 2007 and 2008. The

availability of peatland habitat and the occurrence of woodland caribou sign in and around the

SAGD Project Study Area suggest that this species likely occurs in the immediate area.

Woodland caribou are listed as ‘Threatened’ by COSEWIC and are protected under Schedule 1

of the federal Species at Risk Act.



Table 24. Wildlife special status species that may occur in the Algar Lake SAGD Project study

area.

Common Name Scientific Name Alberta Status COSEWIC Status

Amphibians and Reptiles: Canadian Toad Bufo hemiophrys May Be at Risk Not at Risk Red-sided Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis Sensitive -

Birds: Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps Sensitive - Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus Sensitive - Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis Sensitive - American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Sensitive Not at Risk American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Sensitive - Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Sensitive - Green-winged Teal 1 Anas crecca Sensitive - Northern Pintail Anas acuta Sensitive - Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis Sensitive - White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca Sensitive - Osprey Pandion haliaetus Sensitive - Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Sensitive Not at Risk Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Sensitive Not at Risk Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Sensitive Not at Risk Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus Sensitive Not at Risk Sharp-tailed Grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus Sensitive - Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis Undetermined Special Concern Sora Porzana carolina Sensitive - Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis Sensitive - Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Sensitive - Black Tern Chlidonias niger Sensitive Not at Risk Northern Hawk Owl Surnia ulula Sensitive Not at Risk Barred Owl Strix varia Sensitive - Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa Sensitive Not at Risk Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus May Be at Risk Special Concern Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor Sensitive Threatened Black-backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus Sensitive - Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Sensitive - Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi Secure Threatened Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus Sensitive - Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe Sensitive - Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Sensitive - Brown Creeper Certhia americana Sensitive - Cape May Warbler Dendroica tigrina Sensitive - Black-throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens Sensitive - Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca Sensitive - Bay-breasted Warbler Dendroica castanea Sensitive - Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Sensitive - Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis Sensitive Threatened Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana Sensitive - Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus Sensitive Special Concern

Mammals: Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis May Be at Risk -



Common Name Scientific Name Alberta Status COSEWIC Status

Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans Sensitive - Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus Sensitive - Fisher Martes pennanti Sensitive - Wolverine Gulo gulo May Be at Risk Special Concern Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis Sensitive Not at Risk Woodland Caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou At Risk Threatened

1 Bolded and italicized species indicate that the species have been recorded in the study area during field surveys conducted in 2007 and 2008.



5 5.0 WILDLIFE ASSESSMENT

Effects of the Algar Lake SAGD Project on wildlife include habitat loss, mortality and / or habitat

fragmentation and loss of connectivity. Each of these factors is discussed separately for the

SAGD Project Study Area and the Access Road Study Area.

5.1 SAGD Project Study Area

5.1.1 Habitat Loss

Direct habitat loss will result from clearing natural vegetation for borrow pits, well pads, well pad

access roads, camp site, and the SAGD plant site. Most of the 43.2 ha of habitat that will be

lost within the SAGD Project Study Area is characterized by lowland shrub (33.8%) and mixed

coniferous (53.5%) habitats (Table 25, Figure 11). Overall, this represents a loss of about 11%

of the existing mixed coniferous habitat but only 1.5% of lowland shrub habitat in the SAGD

Project Study Area (Table 25). Overall losses for each of the remaining habitat types in the

SAGD Project Study Area is <1%.

Table 25. Areal extent of wildlife habitat that will be lost during construction of the plant site-

related facilities in the SAGD Project Study Area.

Habitat Type Project Footprint SAGD Project Study Area

Habitat Loss (ha)

% of Total Lost

Habitat Available (ha)

% Lost of Total Available

Deciduous <0.1 <0.1 51 0.0

Sedge meadow 0.0 0.0 77 0.0

Mixedwood 0.6 1.4 180 0.3

Mixed coniferous 23.1 53.5 205 11.3

White spruce 0.1 0.2 511 0.0

Lowland shrub 14.6 33.8 997 1.5

Lowland treed 4.8 11.1 1,246 0.4

Indeterminate 0.0 0.0 26 0.0

Waterbody 0.0 0.0 9 0.0

Anthropogenic 0.0 0.0 118 0.0

Total 43.2 100.0 3,420 1.3



The primary mitigation measure to minimize habitat loss is to reduce the footprint of these

developments. The proposed location of the SAGD Project will primarily be in mixed coniferous

and lowland shrub habitat. While lowland shrub habitat is abundant in the Project Study Area,

mixed coniferous habitats are rarer. For this reason, mixed coniferous habitats should be

avoided where possible during final project planning and construction. In addition, construction

in other habitat types which are rare or unique or are particularly important for sensitive wildlife

species should be avoided if possible. Instead, attempts should be made to place project

infrastructure in more common habitat types present in the study area.

Habitat loss may also occur indirectly, through sensory disturbance caused by facility operation

(Boreal Caribou Committee 2001). Woodland caribou avoid new well pads (<15.5 months) by a

maximum of 1,000 m during calving season (late winter and spring), and old well pads by up to

500 m during the same time period (Dyer 1999). Caribou are also more likely to be negatively

affected by human activity during this time (Boreal Caribou Committee 2001). Other ungulates

such as moose and deer tend to be less sensitive to human disturbance, but are likely to

respond negatively to noise disturbances and may avoid the immediate area over the short-

term. Sensory disturbance may also be a factor for other large mammals such as black bears,

cougar, wolves, coyote, Canada lynx, fisher and marten.

Indirect habitat losses resulting from sensory disturbance may be minimized by reducing the

duration of development activities and by timing construction activities to avoid sensitive periods

of the year for key wildlife species. Construction should be scheduled to avoid the nesting

(birds) and calving (caribou) seasons (i.e., spring and summer) and the key migratory period for

caribou (i.e., spring and autumn). Plant construction will likely occur between September 1 and

March 1. During construction, sensory disturbances will be localized and intense over the short

term. While some wildlife avoidance will occur immediately around these areas, it is expected

that avoidance with most species will diminish over the long term.

5.1.2 Mortality

Wildlife mortality concerns related to the SAGD Project Study Area are primarily associated with

the development of the access road, as discussed in Section 5.2.2. Although clearing and

grading operations that will be carried out for site development have the potential to cause

mortality of relatively immobile animals such as cricetid rodents and amphibians, each of the

wildlife species of concern, with the exception of the Canadian toad, are likely to avoid

construction sites at the beginning of clearing operations and are not considered vulnerable to

direct mortality. Although Canadian toads could be vulnerable to mortality, the habitats that will

be directly affected by construction of the plant and well pads are of low suitability for this

species. Canadian toads were not detected during spring amphibian surveys, and although this

does not necessarily mean this species does not occur in the study area, it is most likely



uncommon to rare. Since few roads are present in the SAGD Project Study Area (other than

access roads to the plant site and well pads), the risk of mortality due to vehicles is considered

negligible. Bird species are vulnerable to mortality from clearing operations during the nesting

period; however, losses of eggs or nestlings can be avoided by scheduling clearing operations

to avoid the nesting period for species that occur in the study area.

Wildlife may also be attracted to camp sites in search of food. Black bears that become

conditioned to feeding on non-natural food sources and habituated to humans pose a safety risk

to people and are sometimes destroyed to protect workers or property. This is a problem that is

largely preventable, however. To avoid any potential negative human-wildlife interactions or

any habituation of wildlife to people and garbage, all garbage should be stored in bear-proof

containers until it is transported to off-site waste treatment facilities.

5.1.3 Habitat Fragmentation and Connectivity

Habitat fragmentation associated with increased resource development in northern Alberta is a

management concern for a number of boreal wildlife species. Noise, human activity and

construction of above-ground facilities will result in some species avoidance of industrial

developments and may affect wildlife movements the landscape. Large, wide-ranging

mammals are considered particularly vulnerable to developments that restrict their movements

and affect habitat connectivity.

The effects of habitat fragmentation can be reduced by clustering development, reducing the

size of disturbance footprints, and avoiding major linear landscape features such as

watercourses or valleys, that might serve as movement corridors for some wildlife species.

From this perspective, habitat fragmentation effects associated with the proposed Algar Lake

SAGD Project appear to relatively minor. The plant site and well pads for the Project are tightly

grouped, which reduces the potential for fragmentation and loss of connectivity. Although the

development approaches Little Horse Creek to the east, the development is not likely to affect

the connectivity of habitats along this major drainage feature.

5.2 Access Road Study Area

5.2.1 Habitat Loss

The proposed access road is approximately 10 km long and has a total footprint of 40.2 ha.

Along with the associated borrow pits, water line, gas line, and water wells the access and

associated facilities, 75.1 ha of wildlife habitat will be directly lost in the Access Road Study

Area. Most of this habitat loss is comprised of lowland shrub (47.3%) and lowland tree habitats

(30.2) and represents only minor percentages (6.9% and 7.1%, respectively) of the total

available in the Access Road Study Area (Table 26). Overall losses for remaining habitats are



<5% of their total availability in the Access Road Study Area. However, the access road, water

line, and gas line will cross Little Horse Creek.

Table 26. Areal extent of wildlife habitats disturbed by associated facilities (e.g., access road,

borrow pits, water line, gas line) in Access Road Study Area.

Habitat Project Footprint Access Road Study Area

Area Disturbed (ha)

% of Total Lost

Area Available (ha)

% Lost of Total Available

Deciduous 2.0 2.7 52 3.9

Sedge meadow 1.2 1.6 30 4.0

Mixedwood 0.7 0.9 108 0.6

Mixed coniferous 2.5 3.3 98 2.5

White spruce 6.3 8.4 140 4.5

Lowland shrub 35.5 47.3 516 6.9

Lowland treed 22.7 30.2 320 7.1

Anthropogenic 4.2 5.6 88 4.8

Total 75.1 100 1,352 5.6

Over most of its length, the access road will cross treed and open muskeg habitat. Although

this area is not located within the East Side of the Athabasca River (ESAR) woodland caribou

range, the access road will pass through suitable caribou habitat. Loss of any old-growth

coniferous habitat is a potential concern for woodland caribou conservation in the region.

Habitat loss may also occur indirectly, through sensory disturbance caused by vehicle travel

along the access road (Boreal Caribou Committee 2001). Indirect habitat losses resulting from

sensory disturbance may be minimized by reducing the duration of development activities and

by timing construction activities to avoid sensitive periods of the year for key species.

Construction should generally be scheduled to avoid the nesting (birds) and calving (caribou)

seasons (i.e., spring and summer) and the key migratory period for woodland caribou (i.e.,

spring and autumn). Road construction will likely occur during winter, and during this time

construction, sensory disturbances will be localized and intense for a short-term duration.

Mitigation of habitat loss will be achieved primarily by minimizing the project footprint where

possible. The access road will be limited to 40 m in width and will be paired with the waterline

to keep the footprint to a minimum. Borrow pits will be required during construction of the road;

however, they should be reclaimed immediately following their use and should be placed to

avoid old-growth habitats where possible. Lichens are the primary food source for woodland

caribou, and because lichens are relatively slow-growing, they occur primarily in old-growth

forest. Therefore, loss of old-growth forest habitat is a concern for the conservation of caribou

in the area. Wherever possible, the road will follow existing cutlines and clearings, and if new



clearing is necessary, younger stands (structural stage 1 – 5) should be cleared instead of more

mature stands (structural stage 6+).

As with the SAGD project facilities; indirect habitat loss may occur through sensory disturbance

caused by construction and travel along the access road (Boreal Caribou Committee 2001).

These disturbances may be minimized by timing construction to avoid key nesting (birds) and

calving (caribou) seasons, as noted above. Road construction will likely occur between

September 1 and March 1. While it is expected that there will be some wildlife avoidance

immediately around these areas, this is likely to diminish over time.

5.2.2 Mortality

Wildlife mortality within the Access Road Study Area can be affected by several mechanisms.

The first is increased mortality associated with wildlife-vehicle collisions (Jalkotzy et al. 1998).

The access road to the SAGD plant site passes through mature black spruce forest, which

provides suitable woodland caribou habitat. Wildlife attempting to cross the new access road

may be struck by passing vehicles, resulting in injury to animals or mortality. With appropriate

mitigation measures such as maintaining low speed limits, wildlife crossing signage and raising

wildlife awareness among employees, vehicular collisions with wildlife is not expected to affect

local or regional wildlife populations.

Hunting and poaching could potentially increase with improved access to a previously lightly

accessed area, even if the access restrictions described above are implemented. Poaching,

especially of woodland caribou, is of particular concern (Dzus 2001). With mitigation measures,

such as limited access to the road, poaching is not expected to have a major effect on wildlife

populations.


Linear features such as the access road have the potential to act as a barrier to wildlife

movement, thus fragmenting their habitat. For this reason, the access road makes use of

existing corridors wherever possible, minimizing the need for additional clearing. Much of the

access road and water line is immediately adjacent to an existing pipeline, thereby reducing

habitat fragmentation. Physical barriers such as large snow piles along the access road should

be minimized to facilitate free movement of wildlife (BCC 2001). If snow berms are consistently

>1 m high along road sides, then 10 m wide breaks should be ploughed into the berms at

identified wildlife crossings or at 500 m intervals to facilitate movement of wildlife across roads.

With access management and recommended maintenance measures, the access road is not

expected to have a significant effect on habitat fragmentation or connectivity. Follow up surveys

should be conducted to determine caribou use along the access roads and to identify caribou

and other wildlife trails and determine where wildlife movement corridors intersect the access

road.



5.3 Wildlife Protection Measures

As discussed above, potential effects of the proposed Algar Lake SAGD Project include direct

and indirect habitat losses, increased mortality, and habitat fragmentation with the introduction

of corridors and project-related facilities and infrastructure. To further minimize the effects of

the Project and associated facilities and infrastructure on wildlife, the following additional wildlife

protection measures should be implemented in the SAGD Project and / or Access Road Study

Areas as appropriate.

5.3.1 Habitat Loss Final location and size of plant, well pads, roads and borrow pits should be designed to

reduce the impact to old-growth forests, riparian areas and other unique habitats in the SAGD Project and Access Road Study Areas.

Vegetation clearing should be conducted during the winter months to avoid sensory disturbance of breeding birds and calving woodland caribou. An “early-in, early-out” policy should be employed with regards to caribou (i.e., start activities 15 October and be out of the area by 15 February, whenever possible).

The reclamation plan should include measures such as progressive reclamation of unused features (e.g., temporary road widening to facilitate construction vehicles), conversion of borrow pits into wetlands for amphibians and waterbirds, and use of native species for all reclamation. The access road should be promptly rolled back and reclaimed immediately following Project closure.

Hydrological flow should be maintained through the use of culverts, bridges and other devices as necessary.

5.3.2 Mortality If vegetation clearing cannot be accomplished during the fall and winter months, nest

searches should be conducted prior to clearing between May and August. This will reduce the probability of destroying raptor, songbird and waterfowl / waterbird nests.

An Access and Recreation Management Plan should be designed and implemented to minimize recreational use of the area once the road has been constructed. This should include, but not limited to the following:

Restriction of the recreational use of snowmobiles and ATV’s along the access road and utility corridors by Project employees.

New linear features (cutlines) that are connected to the main access road should be blocked to minimize recreational use.

Project employees should be prohibited from hunting along the access road and in the SAGD Project Study Area.

Employees should not be permitted to have firearms or pets on the lease unless specifically authorized by Grizzly Oil Sands ULC for the purpose of personal protection and safety

Access should be coordinated with other stakeholders in the area.



Low speed limits should be enforced along all access roads and signs should be posted at wildlife crossings or important wildlife habitat areas to minimize mortality risk.

A policy should be implemented concerning no-littering and no feeding or harassment of wildlife by on-site workers.

Wildlife encountered by vehicles on access roads or the project site should be allowed to passively move from the ploughed surface, without undue harassment.

All wildlife mortalities resulting from collisions with vehicles should be promptly reported to ASRD personnel.

Creation of a Spill Management Plan, including measures such as refuelling vehicles away from waterbodies, carrying spill kits in all vehicles, and prompt reporting and cleaning up of accidental spills.

To minimize interactions with bears and other scavenging wildlife, all garbage should be stored in bear-proof containers until such time as it is transported to off-site waste treatment facilities.


Pre-disturbance surveys should be carried out to confirm the occurrence of wildlife trails within

the SAGD Project and Access Road Study Areas. These surveys may involve a combination of

ground surveys and remote cameras, and aerial surveys in areas not previously surveyed. Data

from these surveys could be used to determine placement of road signage to limit vehicle

speeds in areas identified as wildlife crossings, place wildlife crossing structures where

appropriate (necessary only if aboveground pipeline is adjacent to the road) and to monitor

changes in wildlife use in the area. All obvious wildlife trails intersected by the access road will

be kept free of slash, ditch and grade spoil, and other project-related materials during and

following construction

5.4 Monitoring

A wildlife monitoring program should be put in place during the operations and decommissioning

phases of the Project. The goals of the wildlife monitoring program should be to evaluate the

effectiveness of recommended wildlife mitigation and reclamation procedures. Grizzly Oil

Sands ULC should work with ASRD personnel to develop the details of such a monitoring

program following project approval.



6 6.0 LITERATURE CITED Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2008. Status of Alberta wildlife.

http://www.srd.alberta.ca/fishwildlife/status/default.aspx. Accessed April 2008.

AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. (AXYS). 1999. Petro-Canada MacKay River Project Environmental Assessment: Supplemental surveys. Prepared for Petro-Canada Oil and Gas. Prepared by AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd., Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. (AXYS). 1999b. Breeding bird, raptor nest and Canadian toad survey of the north central corridor pipeline. Technical report for NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. (AXYS). 1999c. Petro-Canada MacKay River Project Environmental Assessment: Supplemental surveys. Prepared for Petro-Canada Oil and Gas. Prepared by AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd., Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. (AXYS). 1999c. Supplemental wildlife and vegetation surveys in the AEC Foster Creek Study Area. Technical report to the EIA for EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. Prepared for Alberta Energy Corporation. Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. (AXYS). 2000. Application for the approval of the Surmont Commercial Oil Sands Project, Technical Appendix 1: Environmental Baseline Study. Prepared for Gulf Canada Resources Limited. Calgary Alberta, Canada.

AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. (AXYS). 2001a. Application for the approval of the Surmont In-Situ Oil Sands Project. Technical Appendix 6: Supplemental Wildlife Surveys. Prepared for Gulf Canada Resources Limited. Prepared by AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd., Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd. (AXYS). 2001b. Application for the approval of the Fort Hills Oil Sands Project . Prepared for True North Energy Inc. Prepared by AXYS Environmental Consulting Ltd., Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

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 regions, v1. Canadian Wildlife Service, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

Bibby, C.J., N.D. Burgess and D.A. Hill. 1993. Bird Census Techniques. Academic Press. London, UK.



Boreal Caribou Committee. 2001. Strategic plan and industrial guidelines for boreal caribou ranges in northern Alberta. Boreal Caribou Committee. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Brusnyk, L.M and D.A. Westworth. 1986. Ungulate monitoring studies in the Cold Lake Project Area for Esso Resources Canada Ltd. Prepared for Esso Resources Canada by D.A. Westworth and Associates Ltd. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Caughley, G. 1974. Bias in aerial surveys. Journal of Wildlife Management 38:921-933.

Caughley, G. and J. Goddard. 1972. Improving the rstimate for inaccurate censuses. Journal of Wildlife Management 36:135-140.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2008. Status of species. http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct5/index_e.cfm. Accessed April 2008.

Cumulative Environmental Management Association (CEMA). 2001. Sustainable Ecosystem Working Group Terms of Reference and Work Plan. August 2001.

Fanzreb, K.E. 1981. A comparative analysis of territorial mapping and variable-strip transect censusing methods. Studies in Avian Biology 6:164-169.

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.

Geographic Dynamics Corporation (GDC). 2010. Vegetation and wetlands resource, assessment and rare plant survey report for the Algar Lake SAGD Project. Prepared for Grizzly Energy ULC. January 2010. GDC project number 2007022.

Horejsi, B.L. and G.E. Hornbeck. 1985. Ungulate abundance in the Cold Lake Monitoring Program Area: A report on the first year of study to monitor ungulate abundance, Distribution and Habitat Uses in the Cold Lake Phased Project Development Area. Prepared for Esso Resources Canada by IEC Beak Consultants Ltd. and Western Wildlife Environments Consulting Ltd. Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Husky Energy Inc. (Husky). 2004. Sunrise Thermal Project. Husky Energy Application to Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and Alberta Environment. Prepared for Husky Oil Operations Limited. Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited (IORVL). 2006. Kearl Oil Sands Project – Mine Development Volume 3, Section 9: Wildlife baseline. Submitted to Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and Alberta Environment by Imperial Oil Resources Ventures Limited. Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Johnsgard, P. 1988. North American owls. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, District of Columbia. USA.

Kennedy, P.L. and D.W. Stahlecker. 1993. Responsiveness of nesting northern goshawks to taped broadcasts of three conspecific calls. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:249-257.



LaResche, R.E. and R.A. Rausch. 1974. Accuracy and precision of aerial moose censusing. Journal of Wildlife Management 38:174-182.

Mitchell, H.B. 1970. Rapid aerial sexing of antlerless moose in British Columbia. Journal of Wildlife Management 34:645-646.

Mosher, J.A. and M.R. Fuller. 1996. Surveying woodland hawks with broadcasts of great horned owl vocalizations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:531-536.

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.

Resource Inventory Committee. 1996. Inventory methods for owl surveys: Standards for components of British Columbia’s biodiversity No 42. Ministry of Environment. Ecosystems Branch, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

Resource Inventory Committee (RIC). 2001. Inventory methods for raptors: Standards for components of British Columbia’s biodiversity No. 11. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Environment Inventory Branch. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

Rosenfield, R.N., J. Bielefeldt, R.K. Anderson and W.A. Smith. 1985. Taped calls as an aid in locating Cooper’s hawk nests. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:62-63.

Takats, D.L. and G.L. Holroyd. 1997. Owl broadcast surveys in the Foothills Model Forest, Alberta, Canada. In J.R. Duncan, D.H. Johnson and T.H. Nichols (ed.). Second International Symposium on the Biology and Conservation of Owls in the Northern Hemisphere. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report. NC-190. 421-430.

Westworth Associates Environmental Ltd. 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 Wildlife and Fish Working Group, Cumulative Environmental Management Association, Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada.



7 7.0 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS Bazin, R. 2007. Wildlife Biologist. Canadian Wildlife Service, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Powell, T. 2008. Regional Wildlife Biologist, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Personal communication.

Rintoul, J. 2008. Program Director, Alberta Natural Heritage Information Centre. Personal communication.

Fort McMurray

Athabasca River

450000.000000 460000.000000 470000.000000 480000.000000 490000.000000

62

40

00

0.0

00

00

0

62

40

00

0.0

00

00

0

62

50

00

0.0

00

00

0

62

50

00

0.0

00

00

0

62

60

00

0.0

00

00

0

62

60

00

0.0

00

00

0

62

70

00

0.0

00

00

0

62

70

00

0.0

00

00

0

62

80

00

0.0

00

00

0

62

80

00

0.0

00

00

0

62

90

00

0.0

00

00

0

62

90

00

0.0

00

00

0

SG LB1

22/12/2009

13/07/2008

Acknowledgements:Original Drawing by Westworth Associates

Environmental Ltd.

NORTHALGAR LAKE SAGD PROJECT - WILDLIFE ASSESSMENT

Location of the Projectin Northeastern Alberta

Areaof

Detail

FIGURE NO.

SCALE

APPROVED

REVISION DATE

PREPARED BY

DRAWN

DRAFT DATE

PROJECT

757

0 2 4 6 8

Kilometers

Hwy 63

SAGD Project Study Area

1:260,000

Access Road Study Area

450000.000000

62

50

00

0.0

00

00

0

62

50

00

0.0

00

00

0

SG LB2

04/01/2010

13/07/2008

Acknowledgements:Original Drawing by Stantec

Consulting Ltd.


Habitat Types within the SAGD Project Study Area

Areaof

Detail

FIGURE NO.

SCALE

APPROVED

REVISION DATE

PREPARED BY

DRAWN

DRAFT DATE

PROJECT

757

0 0.4 0.8 1.2

Kilometers1:40,000

Legend

SAGD Project Study AreaProject Footprint

Habitat TypesDeciduousDisturbanceIndeterminateLowland shrubLowland treedMixed coniferousMixedwoodSedge meadowWaterbodyWhite spruce

450000.000000

62

40

00

0.0

00

00

0

62

40

00

0.0

00

00

0

SG LB3

04/01/2010

13/07/2008


Consulting Ltd.


Habitat Types within the Access Road Study Area

Areaof

Detail

FIGURE NO.

SCALE

APPROVED

REVISION DATE

PREPARED BY

DRAWN

DRAFT DATE

PROJECT

757

0 0.4 0.8 1.2

Kilometers1:40,000

Legend

Access Road Study AreaProject Footprint

Habitat TypesAnthropogenicDeciduousLowland shrubLowland treedMixed coniferousMixedwoodSedge meadowWhite spruce

#0

#0

#0 #0#0

#0#0#0

#0

#0

#0

#0#0#0#0

#0

#0 #0

#0

#0#0#0

#0 #0#0

#0

#0

450000.000000

62

50

00

0.0

00

00

0

62

50

00

0.0

00

00

0

SG LB4

04/01/2010

13/07/2008


Consulting Ltd.


Location of Habitat Assessement Sites in the SAGD Project Study Area

Areaof

Detail

FIGURE NO.

SCALE

APPROVED

REVISION DATE

PREPARED BY

DRAWN

DRAFT DATE

PROJECT

757

0 0.4 0.8 1.2

Kilometers1:40,000

Legend

#0 Habitat Assessment SitesHabitat Types

DeciduousDisturbanceIndeterminateLowland shrubLowland treedMixed coniferousMixedwoodSedge meadowWaterbodyWhite spruce

450000.000000

62

50

00

0.0

00

00

0

62

50

00

0.0

00

00

0

SG LB5

04/01/2010

13/07/2008


Consulting Ltd.


Location of Winter TrackingTransects in the


Areaof

Detail

FIGURE NO.

SCALE

APPROVED

REVISION DATE

PREPARED BY

DRAWN

DRAFT DATE

PROJECT

757

0 0.4 0.8 1.2

Kilometers1:40,000

Legend

Tracking TransectsSAGD Project Study Area


Algar

Algar

Egg-Pony

Athabasca River

430000.000000 440000.000000 450000.000000 460000.000000 470000.000000

62

20

00

0.0

00

00

0

62

20

00

0.0

00

00

0

62

30

00

0.0

00

00

0

62

30

00

0.0

00

00

0

62

40

00

0.0

00

00

0

62

40

00

0.0

00

00

0

62

50

00

0.0

00

00

0

62

50

00

0.0

00

00

0

62

60

00

0.0

00

00

0

62

60

00

0.0

00

00

0

62

70

00

0.0

00

00

0

62

70

00

0.0

00

00

0

SG LB6

22/12/2009

13/07/2008

Acknowledgements:Original Drawing by Westworth Associates

Environmental Ltd.


Location of the Projectand Caribou Ranges

Areaof

Detail

FIGURE NO.

SCALE

APPROVED

REVISION DATE

PREPARED BY

DRAWN

DRAFT DATE

PROJECT

757

0 2.5 5 7.5 10

Kilometers

Hwy 63


1:280,000

Access Road Study Area

450000.000000

62

50

00

0.0

00

00

0

62

50

00

0.0

00

00

0

SG LB7

05/01/2010

13/07/2008


Consulting Ltd.


Location of Aerial Ungulate Surveyin the SAGD Project Study Area

Areaof

Detail

FIGURE NO.

SCALE

APPROVED

REVISION DATE

PREPARED BY

DRAWN

DRAFT DATE

PROJECT

757

0 0.4 0.8 1.2

Kilometers1:40,000

Legend

Aerial SurveySAGD Project Study Area


!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!. !.

!.

!.

450000.000000

62

50

00

0.0

00

00

0

62

50

00

0.0

00

00

0

SG LB8

05/01/2010

13/07/2008


Consulting Ltd.


Location of Owl Survey Stationsin the SAGD Project Study Area

Areaof

Detail

FIGURE NO.

SCALE

APPROVED

REVISION DATE

PREPARED BY

DRAWN

DRAFT DATE

PROJECT

757

0 0.4 0.8 1.2

Kilometers1:40,000

Legend

!. Owl Stations

Owl Survey AreaSAGD Project Study Area


!>

!>

!>!>

!>

!>!>

450000.000000

62

50

00

0.0

00

00

0

62

50

00

0.0

00

00

0

SG LB9

05/01/2010

13/07/2008


Consulting Ltd.


Location of Raptor Survey Stationsin the SAGD Project Study Area

Areaof

Detail

FIGURE NO.

SCALE

APPROVED

REVISION DATE

PREPARED BY

DRAWN

DRAFT DATE

PROJECT

757

0 0.4 0.8 1.2

Kilometers1:40,000

Legend

!> Raptor Stations

Raptor Survey AreaSAGD Project Study Area


!>

!>

!>!>

!>

!>!>

450000.000000

62

50

00

0.0

00

00

0

62

50

00

0.0

00

00

0

SG LB10

05/01/2010

13/07/2008


Consulting Ltd.


Location of Amphibian and RailSurvey Stations in the SAGD

Project Study Area

Areaof

Detail

FIGURE NO.

SCALE

APPROVED

REVISION DATE

PREPARED BY

DRAWN

DRAFT DATE

PROJECT

757

0 0.4 0.8 1.2

Kilometers1:40,000

Legend

!> Amphibian and Rail Stations

Amphibian Survey AreaSAGD Project Study Area


!!!!! !

!

!!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!

!! !

!

!!!!!

!!!!!

!

!

!

! ! !!

!

450000.000000

62

50

00

0.0

00

00

0

62

50

00

0.0

00

00

0

SG LB11

05/01/2010

13/07/2008


Consulting Ltd.


Location of Songbird Stations andWaterfowl Survey in the SAGD Project Study Area

Areaof

Detail

FIGURE NO.

SCALE

APPROVED

REVISION DATE

PREPARED BY

DRAWN

DRAFT DATE

PROJECT

757

0 0.4 0.8 1.2

Kilometers1:40,000

Legend

Waterfowl Survey

! Songbird Stations

SAGD Project Study AreaHabitat Types

DeciduousDisturbanceIndeterminateLowland shrubLowland treedMixed coniferousMixedwoodSedge meadowWaterbodyWhite spruce

SG LB12

05/01/2010

13/07/2008


Consulting Ltd.


Project Footprint in the SAGD Project and Access Road

Study Areas

Areaof

Detail

FIGURE NO.

SCALE

APPROVED

REVISION DATE

PREPARED BY

DRAWN

DRAFT DATE

PROJECT

757

0 0.6 1.2 1.8

Kilometers

Project Footprint

Study Area HabitatDeciduousDisturbanceIndeterminateLowland shrubLowland treedMixed coniferousMixedwoodSedge meadowWaterbodyWhite spruce

Legend

Project Footprint

Habitat Types

Deciduous

Disturbance

Indeterminate

Lowland shrub

Lowland treed

Mixed coniferous

Mixedwood

Sedge meadow

Waterbody

White spruce

SAGD Project Study Area Access Road Study Area

algar lake sagd project – wildlife … lake sagd project – wildlife assessment grizzly oil sands...

Documents