survey for endangered yellow-breasted chat breeding

SURVEY FOR ENDANGERED YELLOW-BREASTED CHAT BREEDING OCCURRENCE, HABITAT AND PRODUCTIVITY

IN SOUTHEASTERN BC Prepared by: Marlene Machmer, M.Sc. & Steve Ogle, B.Sc. Pandion Ecological Research Ltd. 532 Park Street, Nelson, BC V1L 2G9 Prepared for: Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Compensation Program, Suite 103, 333 Victoria Street Nelson, BC V1L 4K3 Teck Cominco Metals Ltd. Box 1000. 25 Aldridge Ave. Trail, BC V1R 4L8 © 1986 Panda symbol WWF – World Wide Fund For Nature ® “WWF” is a WWF Registered Trademark

March 2006

Survey for Endangered Yellow-breasted Chat Occurrence, Habitat and Productivity in Southeastern BC

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In spring and summer 2005, we conducted a breeding survey for endangered Yellow-breasted Chats in southeastern British Columbia. Surveys were focused in suitable shrub-dominated habitats located in the West Kootenay near Creston and Waneta. Specific objectives of this survey were to: (1) locate individuals and identify active breeding territories, (2) locate active nests, (3) describe the breeding habitat, and (4) evaluate the vegetation composition of breeding territories and nest patches. Field surveys were conducted at 72 survey stations and chat responses were detected at 1 of 35 (2.9%) stations near Creston, and 5 of 37 (13.5%) stations near Waneta. Suitable habitat in the Waneta area appeared to be relatively confined to lower elevation, south to west-facing aspects on mesic shrub-dominated sites located upstream of the Waneta Dam and within about 1.5 km of the Waneta Reservoir. In the Creston Valley, suitable habitat appeared more abundant and widespread, and not all suitable areas could be surveyed in 2005. Follow-up monitoring confirmed the presence of one active breeding territory in Creston and three territories near Waneta. One active nest found at Waneta in 2005 fledged three young, but the fate of the three other breeding territories could not be conclusively determined. Intensive monitoring did not uncover any nests or fledglings, suggesting that breeding attempts failed. Our findings are consistent with previous unconfirmed reports of chats breeding in Creston and confirm that chats are nesting consistently in the West Kootenay, near Waneta. Chat breeding territories were in the ICHxw subzone and estimated territory sizes ranged from 0.48 – 2.52 ha. All four territories were dominated by shrubby vegetation (mean = 61.2% cover), and grasses/forbs (mean = 20.5%), trees (mean = 14.2%), water (2.7%) and bare ground (1%) comprised the remainder of breeding territory cover. Dominant shrub species were ocean spray, saskatoon, snowberry, rose spp., mallow ninebark, and beaked hazelnut. The vegetation structure of territories in the West Kootenay was relatively consistent with that reported for the South Okanagan chat population, although the vegetation composition differed somewhat. Of the breeding territories in 2005, one is within a wildlife management area and three are located on private land. A fifth breeding territory identified in 2004 at Waneta is also located on private land. Management issues and concerns in relation to these specific breeding territories and to surrounding areas with suitable breeding habitat are identified. Recommendations pertaining to chat management, conservation and stewardship are provided and future inventory and research needs are identified in the context of current recovery planning efforts directed at this endangered population in BC.

Pandion Ecological Research Ltd. 2


TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 2

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND................................................................... 5

1.1 Project Objectives ................................................................................................... 5

1.2 Study Area ............................................................................................................... 6

2.0 METHODS ................................................................................................................ 6

2.1 Site Selection........................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Field Surveys........................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Breeding Activity Monitoring ................................................................................. 8

2.4 Breeding Habitat Assessment................................................................................ 9

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION................................................................................ 10

3.1 Site Selection......................................................................................................... 10

3.2 Field Surveys......................................................................................................... 11

3.3 Breeding Activity Monitoring ............................................................................... 11 3.3.1 Breeding Phenology .................................................................................... 20

3.4 Breeding Habitat Assessment.............................................................................. 20 3.4.1 Land Status ................................................................................................. 21 3.4.2 Breeding Site Characteristics ...................................................................... 21 3.4.3 Vegetation Composition .............................................................................. 21 3.4.4 Breeding Territory Fidelity ........................................................................... 24

3.5 Incidental Observations........................................................................................ 25

4.0 SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS .................................. 25

5.0 LITERATURE CITED.............................................................................................. 31

Appendix 1. Digital Data Files (on CD-rom) ............................................................. 34 a. Chat Survey Data .................................................................................................. 34 b. Chat Records......................................................................................................... 34 c. Territory Descriptions............................................................................................. 34



d. Incidental Survey Data........................................................................................... 34

Appendix 2. Other Bird Species Detections. ............................................................ 35

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Breeding phenology for four chat territories active near Creston and Waneta in 2005 (M = male; F = female). ................................................................................. 20

Table 2. Breeding territory land status and site characteristics of four chat territories active near Creston and Waneta in 2005. .............................................................. 22

Table 3. Vegetation composition (%) of four breeding territories active in 2005 (both the estimates for the territory as a whole and a 50 m radius plot centered on the territory are shown). ............................................................................................... 22

Table 4. Vegetation composition (%) of the 2005 Isthmus breeding territory as assessed from a 5 m and 11.3 m plot centered on the active nest. ....................................... 23

Table 5. Management, conservation and stewardship recommendations for specific chat breeding territories. ................................................................................................ 27

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Study area overview......................................................................................... 7 Figure 2. Creston sampling stations 2005. .................................................................... 12 Figure 3. Waneta sampling stations 2005. .................................................................... 13 Figure 4. Creston detection locations 2005. .................................................................. 14 Figure 5. Waneta detection locations 2005. .................................................................. 15 Figure 6. Vegetation characteristics and structure of sites with chats detected. ........... 16 Figure 7. 2005 and 2004 active nests near Waneta. ..................................................... 18

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was conducted by Marlene Machmer and Steve Ogle. We thank Mark Schnider (CBFWCP) for producing maps, and Juliet Craig (CBFWCP) for administering the project and assisting with nest searching. We also thank Christine Bishop for her encouragement, support and collaboration throughout the project. The following individuals provided information, resources or review comments that were helpful in completing this project: Ted Antifeau (Ministry of Environment), Marc-Andre Beaucher (CVWMA), Christine Bishop (Canadian Wildlife Service), Richard Carrington (Klohn-Crippen Consultants Ltd.), Kevin Delgarno (BCTC), Bill Duncan, Richard Deane (Teck Cominco Metals Ltd.), Bruce Enns (Golder Associates Ltd.), John Krebs (CBFWCP), Doug Pickard (FortisBC), and Steve Wilson (EcoLogic Consulting). We would like to say a special thanks to Peter McIver and Dawn Wrangler for sharing their chat sightings. We are grateful for funding received for this project from the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Compensation Program, FortisBC, Teck Cominco Metals Ltd., and WWF-Canada and Environment Canada. We also thank Columbia Power Corporation for providing funding for MM to attend a Chat Recovery Team Meeting.



1.0 Introduction and Background

The Yellow-breasted Chat (Icteria virens) is the largest member of the wood-warbler family (Parulidae) in North America and two subspecies are recognized: eastern I.v. virens and western I. v. auricollis (Eckerle and Thompson 2001). Their large size, robust structure, and distinctive plumage distinguish this species from similarly colored songbirds. Unlike other wood-warblers, male yellow-breasted chats have a unique vocal repertoire that consists of a mixture of “harsh chattering clucks and soft caws, alternating with repeated whistles” (Eckerle and Thompson 2001; Bishop et al. 2004). These vocalizations and a flight display make it possible to confirm the presence of males early in the breeding season. Females are more elusive and outside of the breeding season, both sexes are difficult to detect. Chats are considered a semi-colonial passerine because of their tendency to establish breeding territories close to other chats (Eckerle and Thompson 2001). The breeding range of the western subspecies extends from southern Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia south to northern Mexico. I.v. auricollis is known to winter from northern Mexico and southern Texas to central Guatemala (Eckerle and Thompson 2001). In the western portion of their extensive range, chats are riparian obligates that nest in the shrubby undergrowth of open canopy riparian habitats (Cannings et al. 1987; Eckerle and Thompson 2001). In BC, breeding of yellow-breasted chats was thought to occur only in the Okanagan and Similkameen Valleys (Cannings 2000; Campbell et al. 2001). Breeding season sightings of I.v. auricollis have been irregularly documented from Creston, and there is a single breeding record for the south coast (Campbell et al. 2001). Due to low population size (<60 pairs) and severe losses of preferred riparian thicket habitat in core areas, the Southern Interior population was designated as “endangered” by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) and “critically imperiled” (i.e., red-listed) by the BC Conservation Data Centre (CDC). A provincial chat recovery team has been established, and a draft (October 2005) national recovery strategy has been prepared for the BC population (Bishop et al. 2005). In 2004, three chats including a breeding pair with an active nest were confirmed near Waneta in southeastern BC (Machmer et al. 2004; Dulisse et al. 2005). This represents the first confirmed breeding record within the West Kootenay and its discovery provided the impetus to further evaluate the breeding distribution and abundance of chats in southeastern BC.

1.1 Project Objectives Specific objectives of this project in 2005 include the following:

1. Conduct surveys for breeding yellow-breasted chats in suitable areas near Waneta and Creston, BC;

2. Where breeding individuals are detected, locate their nests;


Survey for Endang

Pandion E

ered Yellow-breasted Chat Occurrence, Habitat and Productivity in Southeastern BC

cological Research Ltd. 6

3. Describe the breeding habitat and evaluate vegetation composition of territories and nest patches to identify critical habitat; and

These objectives are consistent with the chat recovery strategy which identifies “surveys of southeastern BC to determine the total geographic distribution of breeding locations for chats” as an urgent priority. The strategy also recommends “annual inventory and monitoring of any active territories and nest sites” found in southeastern BC.

1.2 Study Area The study area for this project encompassed riparian shrub-dominated habitats within the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area (hereafter referred to as “Creston”, and the lower Pend d’Oreille Valley, Waneta, Fort Shepherd and Fruitvale areas (hereafter referred to as “Waneta”; see Figure 1).

2.0 Methods

2.1 Site Selection A number of different approaches were used to identify potential sites with high habitat suitability for chats:

1. During a site visit to Creston and Waneta areas in fall of 2004, Marlene Machmer met with Christine Bishop (Chat Recovery Team Leader and Southern Interior Chat Project Coordinator, Canadian Wildlife Service) to view and discuss the suitability of various candidate surveys sites. Suitability of specific areas in Creston was also discussed with Marc-Andre Beaucher (Area Manager, CVWMA).

2. Orthophoto coverage for the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area, the lower Pend d’Oreille Valley and the lower Columbia Valley were obtained through various sources (CVWMA, Columbia Power Corporation, Teck Cominco Metals Ltd.). These were used to identify shrub-dominated habitats within larger survey areas selected.

3. Habitat mapping (1:10,000) completed by Wilson et al. (2005) as part of a habitat management plan for the CVWMA was used to help identify shrub-dominated habitats suitable for chats. Biophysical habitat mapping (1:20,000) for the southern Columbia River Valley developed specifically for Teck Cominco Metals Ltd. (as part of an ongoing Ecological Risk Assessment project; Teck Cominco Metals Ltd. 2004) was used to identify shrub-dominated polygons and/or forest polygons with a significant open shrub component. Both sites outside and within transmission line right-of-ways (RoWs) were included as candidates for surveys.

4. All candidate sites were field-truthed and based on their vegetation characteristics, a decision was made as to whether they should be surveyed. In a few cases, additional potentially suitable areas (not identified from steps 1-3 above) were encountered during field reconnaissance and also surveyed.



Figure 1. Study area overview.

.


2.2 Field Surveys Field surveys were conducted from May 24 to June 20, 2005. A total of 72 survey stations were established, and each station was visited a minimum of twice during the breeding season.

To survey for chats, a trained observer arrived at the station, and first listened for one minute for singing male chats. If none were heard, a tape of a male chat singing was played for one minute, and the observer listened for three minutes for a potential response to the chat tape recording. The tape was played again and the observer listened for one more minute before moving onto the next station.

If a male was detected, the observer watched for 30 minutes and noted the perch locations, height and shrub/tree species used by the male. GPS locations were collected for observed perches in order to define the territory boundaries, size, and to help pinpoint the location of the nest (chats usually nest within 25 m of the most commonly used perch and singing site of the male).

During the second round of surveys, the observer also recorded a list of incidental birds detected while at each station.

2.3 Breeding Activity Monitoring

At sites where chats were detected, observers re-visited the site every 4-5 days to detect evidence of breeding activity (i.e., nest building, and presence of female). Nest searching was conducted and involved observing adult males and females for nesting behaviour, listening for vocal cues (i.e., female clucking calls) and careful searching of suitable nest patches. If a nest was found, its location was determined using a handheld Garmin GPS. Nest contents were noted, incubation time was calculated, and flagging tape was placed on a shrub at least five meters away from the nest. A compass reading was taken from the flag to the nest and the distance to the nest was recorded. Nests were not re-visited until chicks were at least 5-6 days old to minimize disturbance.

Nest territories were re-visited (every 3-4 days) until young fledged successfully1, or until the territory was considered abandoned2. In the event of nest failure, cause of failure (if known) and nesting phase at time of failure were recorded. The latest re-visit to a nest territory re-visit was conducted on July 12, and no chats were detected on or after this date.

1 A nest was considered successful if at least one fledgling was detected or adults were observed carrying food into thickets. 2 A territory was considered abandoned if after confirmed active, no birds were observed on three successive visits.



2.4 Breeding Habitat Assessment

To evaluate breeding habitat, one visit to the nest site was conducted after the birds fledged. Standard parameters were evaluated as per the BBIRD method (Martin et al. 1997) to describe vegetation composition and density of the nest territory, the nest shrub, and the nest patch. Protocols described by McKibbon (2005) for the South Okanagan chat study were followed, within the constraints of the project budget:

1. Nest Territory

Territory size - The territory circumference was estimated (based on the width and length of the territory measured in meters) using GPS locations of trees and shrubs the male sings from (see Section 2.2). Perches were described based on shrub/tree species and height.

Distance to road, building and water - From the centre of the territory, the distance, in meters to the nearest open water, road and building was measured or estimated.

Vegetation composition - From the middle of the territory, an estimate was made of the % shrubs, % trees, % grass/forbs, % bare ground and % other cover (e.g., water and dead wood/material) within the territory. These layers were considered as non-overlapping (i.e., their total % must add up to 100). Percentages were broken up into % of rose spp., snowberry, saskatoon, dogwood and other shrub species. The total % trees were broken up into % of birch, cottonwood, aspen, willow and other tree species. Standing in the center of the territory, a 50 m radius plot was measured and flagged, and the same estimates as those made above from the center of the territory were repeated.

2. Nest Shrub

Composition - Shrub species, shrub height/width, and distance from nest to ground, nest to vegetation height, and nest to nearest edge of shrub were all measured in cm. The % of the nest covered by vegetation was determined in all four cardinal directions (at eye level one meter away), and then the average % nest cover was calculated.

3. Nest Patch

Patch Dimension and Structure - The distance from the nest to the nearest edge of the continuous patch of shrubs, and the length/width of the continuous patch was measured in cm. The number of stems <2.5cm and >2.5 cm supporting the nest was counted, and the % of stems <2.5 cm and >2.5 cm in a 25 cm radius from the center of the nest was determined. Stems below nest level within the 25 cm radius were also counted.

Vegetation Characteristics - Tape measures were laid out in the four cardinal directions in a 5 m radius from the center of the nest and the plot was dividing into four quadrants. The % rose spp., snowberry, saskatoon, dogwood and other shrubs was estimated for



each quadrant. The % birch, cottonwood, aspen, willow and other trees were estimated, as well as the % grass/forbs, % bare ground and % other cover. The % for each species for each quadrant was then averaged to get an overall estimate of the plot. The number of tree stems in each quadrant (i.e., <20 cm, 21-50 cm and >50 cm in diameter) were counted and averaged. The above procedure was also repeated for an 11.3 m radius plot.

Maps (GIS/ARCView) were generated that show the location and type of breeding habitat used by chats. These were paired with an associated meta-database on the biological parameters of that chat sighting and breeding territory. Where a nest was detected, the nest site and nest patch characteristics were also evaluated.

Where chats were confirmed, preliminary recommendations were developed regarding habitat management, conservation and stewardship. Recommendations were also provided for future inventory and monitoring needs in southeastern BC.

3.0 Results and Discussion

3.1 Site Selection The Creston and Waneta areas were targeted for chat surveys because of (1) unconfirmed breeding records reported in Creston by Campbell et al. (2001), and because of a chat nest confirmed near Waneta in 2004 (Machmer et al. 2004). Both areas lie within the uncommon very dry warm Interior Cedar Hemlock (ICHxw) biogeoclimatic subzone (Braumandl and Curran 1992). This subzone is found exclusively in the West Kootenay region (on south-facing aspects of the Pend d’Oreille Valley, along the lower Columbia Valley from Fort Shepherd/Beaver Creek south, and in the Creston Valley from Boswell to Kitchener). Long dry summers and relatively short mild winters with little snow in the ICHxw provide climatic conditions relatively similar to those in the Southern Interior. These areas support a unique flora and fauna (Dulisse 1999; Schaeffer et al. 2002; Van Damme 2002; Machmer et al. 2004; Wilson et al. 2005), including several species typically associated with dryer zones of the interior (e.g., Racer, Rubber Boa, Fringed Myotis, Townsend’s big-eared bat, etc.). Surveys were initiated at Marsh Creek, near Fruitvale because of the abundance of dense riparian shrubland casually observed in this area. The area lies within the dry warm Interior Cedar Hemlock (ICHdw) biogeoclimatic subzone (Braumandl and Curran 1992). Closer evaluation of the sites during surveys indicated lower suitability for chats because of wetter (i.e., mesic to subhygric) plant associations with higher tree canopy cover, and patchy (non-uniform) shrub communities. All stations from which surveys were conducted were located (a) within a wildlife management area (WMA), (b) on crown lands, or (c) on private lands where permission to survey was granted in advance (e.g., Teck Cominco Metals Ltd. properties), or where surveys could be conducted from a public road without trespassing.



3.2 Field Surveys Field surveys were conducted from May 24 to June 20, 2005 at 72 survey stations (35 near Creston and 37 near Waneta). The distribution of survey stations is shown in Figures 2 and 3 for Creston and Waneta areas, respectively, and survey results are detailed in Appendix 1a (Chat Survey Data). Chat responses were detected at 1 of 35 (2.9%) stations near Creston and 5 of 37 (13.5%) stations near Waneta (see Figures 2 and 3, respectively). Near Creston, a response was detected on May 27, adjacent to Summit Creek (station C25; Figure 2) and follow-up visits confirmed breeding activity in the latter area. Near Waneta, responses were detected at three stations in the vicinity of the dam on May 30 (Figure 3). All were attributed to a single male active on the south bank of the reservoir near station W36, approximately 150 m upstream of the dam. The male was also heard from across the dam at count stations W09 and W17, while the dam was not spilling. A male was also detected on south-facing slopes of the reservoir opposite the mouth of Cedar Creek (station W17) on June 18 (Figure 3). Another male was heard singing down slope of the BC Hydro 5L98 500 kV line (station W22) on June 20 (Figure 3). Follow-up confirmed breeding activity in the latter areas. Chats were not detected at any of the stations surveyed in the Fort Shepherd or Fruitvale areas.

3.3 Breeding Activity Monitoring

Based on responses detected during field surveys above, monitoring of potential breeding activity was conducted in the areas listed below. The locations of all chats detected during surveys and follow-up monitoring (as well as other sightings reported to us by reliable observers) are shown in Figures 4 and 5 for Waneta and Creston areas, respectively. The details for each record are also listed in Appendix 1b (Chat Records).

Summit Creek (station C25, Summit Territory)

After the initial detection of a male on May 27, this area was re-visited on June 3, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 23 and July 5. The male was detected on a portion of re-visits (i.e., June 13, 14, 16 and 23), whereas the female was seen and heard only once on June 16 (Figure 4). Appearance of the male in this territory was described as “periodic”, which may have been related to the relatively wet, cool weather that prevailed during late May to mid-June. He ranged over a very large area and did not settle on a smaller more predictable territory until later in June. This area was intensively searched and a nest was never found, although the site appeared to have high suitability for breeding chats (Figure 6 a&b). The male and female were not re-sighted on re-visits after June 23, and it is suspected that this pair abandoned at about this time. Peter McIver, a local birder, also observed a male and female chat sporadically in this same area from June 13-23 (P. McIver, pers. comm.).



Figure 2. Creston sampling stations 2005.



Figure 3. Waneta sampling stations 2005.



Figure 4. Creston detection locations 2005. – not available – sensitive information



Figure 5. Waneta detection locations 2005 – not available – sensitive information



Figure 6. Vegetation characteristics and structure of sites with chats detected.

a & b. Summit Creek (station C25, Summit Territory)

c. Waneta Dam (station W36) d. Industrial Park, Highway 22A

e & f. Reservoir Bank Opposite Cedar Creek (station W17, Isthmus Territory)



g & h. BC Hydro Line 5L98 (W22, Highliner Territory)

i & j. Alfalfa Territory

k & l. Teck Cominco Land and 2004 Waneta Nest



Figure 7. 2005 and 2004 active nests near Waneta.

a. 2005 active nest (Isthmus) with 3 chicks. b. 2004 active nest with 4 eggs.

Upstream of Waneta Dam (stations W09, W17, W36)

After the detection of a male on May 30 from three stations, this area was re-visited on May 31, June 2 and June 18, with no further observations. The area where the male was detected feeding was considered of very marginal habitat suitability for chats (Figure 5 and 6c). It had some dense riparian shrub near the reservoir, but was dominated by immature forest cover (mainly Douglas fir, black cottonwood, paper birch, young hybrid white spruce and western red cedar). It is assumed that the male used this area for foraging early in the season, but did not attempt to establish a breeding territory nearby.

Reservoir Bank, Opposite Cedar Creek Mouth (station W17, Isthmus Territory)

After detection of a male on June 18, this area was re-visited on June 19, 24, 28, July 1 and 4. The female and an active nest with three young chicks were found on June 24, and a re-visit on June 28 confirmed that all three young were still present in the nest (Figure 7a). The young had fledged by July 1, but they were present very close to the nest, and the male was observed carrying food to begging chicks near the nest on July 4. This area appeared to have relatively high suitability for breeding chats (Figure 5 and 6e&f).

BC Hydro 5L98 500 kV line (station W22, Highliner Territory)

Following detection of a male singing near the BC Hydro 5L98 500 kV line on June 20, this area was re-visited on June 24, 28, July 1, 4, 5, 8 and 12. Chat activity was confirmed on the June 24, July 4 (both male and female) and 5 (Figure 5). The male at this territory occupied a very large area and was present sporadically during re-visits.



Despite intensive nest searching, the female was never re-sighted and a nest was never found. Suitability of the territory was considered moderate given its upland location and 530 m distance to water (Figure 6 g&h).

Reservoir Bank, East of Cedar Creek Mouth (Alfalfa Territory)

On June 30, during the follow-up of breeding activity at the Isthmus territory, a second male was heard singing on the same reservoir bank, but further east along the slope. The male was seen repeatedly on two subsequent visits (July 5 and 9; Figure 5). A female was never confirmed at this territory and the male was not re-sighted after July 9. The area was intensively searched for nests, but no nests were found. The territory was directly adjacent to the Isthmus territory, it appeared to have relatively high suitability for breeding chats (Figure 6 i&j).

Teck Cominco L71 230 kV line (2004 Waneta Nest)

On June 20, while following-up on chat detections along Waneta-Nelway Road, a male was heard calling from the vicinity of the 2004 Waneta nest (Figure 5). No chats were located during further investigation and re-visits on June 24, 28, and July 1st did not uncover chat activity at this location. The area was considered to have moderate suitability for chats (Figure 6 k&l).

Industrial Park Near Highway 22A

On June 27, Dawn Wrangler reported hearing a distinctive bird song resembling that of a chat while conducting a weed survey at the industrial park near Highway 22A (Figure 5). This sighting was followed up on June 30, July 4 and July 5 but no chats were detected near the UTM provided, or in the surrounding area. The industrial park borders a fenced open field surrounded by regenerating forest and shrubby patches comprised mainly of trembling aspen, paper birch, black cottonwood, Saskatoon and willow. The area appeared only marginally suitable for chats (Figure 6 d).

In summary, breeding season sightings followed up near Waneta Dam, near the 2004 Waneta nest, and at the Industrial Park off Highway 22A did not confirm a male or breeding pair on subsequent re-visits. Individuals could have been solitary males moving through the area or attempting to attract a female and/or establish a territory.

The presence of breeding pairs was confirmed at the Summit Creek near Creston (Figure 4), and at two territories (Isthmus and Highliner) near Waneta (Figure 5). Based on the persistent presence of the male, a breeding pair may have been present at the Alfalfa territory, but a female was never confirmed there. Solitary males exhibiting long term mate attraction behavior and perch usage in the absence of a female or confirmed nesting activity are occasionally reported in the South Okanagan (Morgan et al., unpublished manuscript).



3.3.1 Breeding Phenology

The breeding phenology for four territories is summarized in Table 1. Males were first detected between May 27 and June 30, whereas females were observed later, between June 16 and July 4. Based on an estimated fledging date of June 30 for the Isthmus territory (and on the size of the three chicks when the nest was first found on June 24), young likely hatched on about June 21, suggesting a nesting period of about 10 days. Assuming an incubation period of 11-12 days (Ehrlich et al. 1988), incubation would have been initiated on June 10-11. At the 2004 Waneta nest, an incubating female was found on June 24 and incubation continued for 12 days until the morning of July 5, after which the nest either failed or was abandoned.

The breeding phenology above is relatively consistent with previous data reported for South Okanagan. An average clutch initiation date of June 9 was reported by Cannings et al. (1987). In 2002-2003, incubation was initiated between the third week of May and July 10 (Morgan et al., unpublished manuscript), but 63% of all nests initiated from May 27 to June 18 (a portion of nests initiated after this date were re-nests or late starters). The earliest chats in the South Okanagan population are typically observed in mid-May. Our first detections later in May and June may reflect later arrival and/or breeding initiation consistent with the somewhat cooler temperatures found in the West Kootenay during May. However they may simply be an artifact of small sample sizes and/or a later project initiation date and additional breeding phenology data would be required to substantiate any difference. Table 1. Breeding phenology for four chat territories active near Creston and Waneta in 2005 (M = male; F = female).

Territory Name

Male 1st detected

Female 1st detected

Estimated Hatching

Estimated Fledging

Comments

Summit 27-May 16-June n/a n/a

M detected on 5 days; F on 1 day; abandoned after 23-Jun

Isthmus 18-June 24-June 21-June 30-June M detected on 3 days; F on 2 days

Highliner 20-June 4-July n/a n/a M detected on 4 days; F on 1 day; gone after July 5

Alfalfa 30-June n/a n/a n/a M detected on 3 days; no F detected

3.4 Breeding Habitat Assessment

Although breeding territory assessments are typically conducted where nesting is confirmed, we conducted assessments in four territories (i.e., Summit, Isthmus, Highliner and Alfalfa Territories) where nesting was confirmed (Isthmus territory), where a breeding pair was confirmed (Summit and Highliner territories) or where breeding was strongly suspected (Alfalfa territory), based on the persistent presence of a singing male. Our intent was to also sample the habitat surrounding the 2004 Waneta nest


Survey for Endang

Pandion E



(situated on the Teck Cominco Line L71 powerline RoW; Figure 6, k&l). However after attempted nesting in 2004, the nest area was subject to vegetation management in late summer, and it was felt that the measurements may not be representative of what the birds were selecting at the time it was active in 2004.

3.4.1 Land Status The land (i.e., ownership) status of active chat territories is shown in Table 2. The Isthmus and Alfalfa territories are located on private land owned by Teck Cominco Metals Ltd., the Highliner territory is also on private land located adjacent to a BC Hydro ROW corridor, and the Summit site is within the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area. 3.4.2 Breeding Site Characteristics All chat territories were in the ICHxw subzone, with elevations ranging from 505 – 666 meters, slopes between 0 and 55%, and either south-facing aspects or no aspect (Table 2). The distances of territory centres to roads, buildings and water ranged from 20 – 255 m, 200 – >1,000 m, and 20 – 530 m, respectively (Table 2). The site characteristics for the 2004 Waneta nest were within the ranges reported above (Machmer et al. 2004; Dulisse et al. 2005). Estimated territory sizes ranged from 0.48 – 2.52 ha based on observed movements and perches used by males during observation sessions (Appendix 1c: Territory Descriptions; Table 2). These findings are relatively consistent with chat territory sizes in the Southern Interior (mean = 0.71 ha and range of 0.08 – 3.68 ha; Morgan et al., unpublished manuscript) and other areas (mean = 1.24 ha in southern Indiana; Thompson and Nolan 1973). 3.4.3 Vegetation Composition Nest territory - All four territories were dominated by shrubby vegetation (mean = 61.2% and range = 55 – 70% shrub; Table 3). Grasses and forbs comprised from 15 – 25% (mean = 20.5%), whereas trees made up 10 – 20% (mean = 14.2%). An average of 2.7% water and 1% bare ground made up the remainder of the breeding territory cover (Table 3). Territory composition differed negligibly when evaluated using the estimated territory as a whole or a 50 m plot centered on the middle of the territory. Dominant shrub species in West Kootenay breeding territories were ocean spray (Holodiscus discolor), saskatoon (Amelanchiar alnifolia), snowberry (Symphoricarpus albus), rose spp. (Rosa spp.), mallow ninebark (Physocarpus malvaceus), beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), choke cherry (Prunus virginiana) and red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera). Trees included willow spp. (Salix spp.), black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera trichocarpa) and trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides). The vegetation species composition of the 2004 Waneta territory (Machmer et al. 2004; Dulisse et al. 2005) was very consistent with the 2005 territory findings. These results are relatively comparable to those reported for the South Okanagan in terms of vegetation structure and to some extent, shrub species composition (Morgan et al., unpublished manuscript).


Table 2. Breeding territory land status and site characteristics of four chat territories active near Creston and Waneta in 2005.

Site Characteristics: Territory Size: Distance To: Territory Name

Land Status Slope

(%) Aspect

Elev. (m)

Length (m)

Width (m)

Area (m2)

Road (m)

Building (m)

Water (m)

Summit WMA 0 n/a 545 120 40 4,800 20 >1000 20 Isthmus Private 53 175 505 180 100 18,000 125 325 70 Highliner Private 6 192 663 180 140 25,200 255 700 530 Alfalfa Private 55 176 513 120 80 9,600 70 200 65

Table 3. Vegetation composition (%) of four breeding territories active in 2005 (both the estimates for the territory as a whole and a 50 m radius plot centered on the territory are shown).

Shrub Composition (%)

Tree Composition (%)

Territory

Ro

se s

pp

.

Sn

ow

berr

y

Sask

ato

on

Red

osi

er

do

gw

oo

d

Ch

oke c

herr

y

Oce

an

sp

ray

Beaked

haze

lnu

t

Mallo

w

nin

eb

ark

Mis

c.

To

tal S

hru

b

Bla

ck

cott

on

wo

od

Tre

mb

lin

g

asp

en

Wil

low

sp

p.

To

tal Tre

e

% Grass & Forbs

% Bare Ground

% Water

Summit-1 4 33 0 3 4 0 0 0 11 55 10 0 10 20 20 0 5 Isthmus-2 12 4 16 0 0 24 2 4 8 70 0 0 10 10 15 2 3 Highliner-3 13 0 13 0 0 13 0 20 6 65 0 4 8 12 22 0 0 Alfalfa-4 6 1 22 0 3 14 4 1 4 55 0 0 15 15 25 2 3

Territory average 8.7 9.5 12.8 0.7 1.7 12.8 1.5 6.2 7.2 61.2 2.5 1 10.7 14.2 20.5 1 2.7 Summit-1 2.5 24 0 2.5 3 0 0 0 18 50 5 0 5 10 20 5 15

Isthmus-2 12 6 11 0 0 25 3 4 11 72 0 0 7 7 20 1 0 Highliner-3 12 0 12 0 0 12 0 18 6 60 0 0 15 15 25 0 0 Alfalfa-4 3 0 22 0 3 15 8 0 9 60 0 0 15 15 22 2 3

50 m plot average 7.4 7.5 11.3 0.6 1.5 13 2.7 5.5 11 60.5 1.2 0 10.5 11.7 21.7 2 4.5




Table 4. Vegetation composition (%) of the 2005 Isthmus breeding territory as assessed from a 5 m and 11.3 m plot centered on the active nest.

Shrub Composition (%)

Tree Composition (%)

Plot /quadrant

Ro

se s

pp

.

Sn

ow

berr

y

Sask

ato

on

Red

osi

er

do

gw

oo

d

Ch

oke c

herr

y

Oce

an

sp

ray

Beaked

haze

lnu

t

Mallo

w

nin

eb

ark

Mis

c.

To

tal S

hru

b

Bla

ck

cott

on

wo

od

Tre

mb

lin

g

asp

en

Wil

low

sp

p.

To

tal Tre

e

% Grass & Forbs

% Bare Ground

% Water

5 m - south 0 0 30 0 0 50 4.5 5 1.5 91 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 5 m - west 0 0 71 0 0 19 0 5 0 95 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 m -north 0 0 24 0 0 64 9 0 0 97 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 5 m - east 0 0 19 0 0 68 10 0 0 97 0 0 0 0 3 0 0

5 m plot average 0 0 36 0 0 50.3 5.9 2.5 0.4 95 0 0 0 0 5.0 0 0 11.3 m - south 1.5 1.5 8.5 0 8.5 51 7 5 1 84 0 0 3 3 13 0 0 11.3 m - west 0 0 61 0 9 19 0 5 0 94 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 11.3 m - north 0 2 22.5 0 0 61 4.5 0 0 90 0 0 2.7 2.7 7.3 0 0 11.3 m - east 2 0 36 0 9.5 45 2.9 0 0 95.4 0 0 0 0 4.6 0 0

11.3 m plot average 0.9 0.9 32 0 6.8 44 3.6 2.5 0.2 90.9 0 0 1.4 1.4 7.7 0.0 0

Survey for Endang

Pandion E

Dominant shrub and tree species within Okanagan chat territories were rose spp., snowberry, Saskatoon, red-osier dogwood, poison ivy, water birch, willow, alder, quaking aspen and black cottonwood. Nest Shrub - The Isthmus nest was located at 119 cm height in an ocean spray shrub measuring 155 cm high and 101 cm wide. The vegetation height of surrounding shrubbery was 95 cm above the nest height and therefore ≈214 cm. The nest was relatively well concealed in dense vegetation from three of four cardinal directions. When viewed from 1 m away, the percent of the nest covered by vegetation averaged 75% (range of 30 – 100%) from four cardinal directions. From above, the % coverage was estimated at 85%.


The nest site was located near the center of a dense shrub patch measuring an estimated 11 by 8 m in size. The distance from the nest to the nearest patch edge was estimated at 5 m. These findings are consistent with a number of chat nests in the Okanagan that have been found within 1-10 m of patch edges (C. Bishop, pers. comm.). Three stems (all <2.5 cm diameter) were counted supporting the nest from below (within a 25 cm radius of the nest center). Nest Patch – The Isthmus nest patch (5 m radius) had no trees and consisted of 95% shrubs (mainly ocean spray, Saskatoon, beaked hazelnut and mallow ninebark). In the larger 11.3 m radius patch, cover of shrubs (mean = 90.9%) and grasses & forbs (mean = 7.7%) was slightly lower and higher, respectively. Shrub species were more diverse and sparse willow cover (average of 2.7% comprised of 2 stems total measuring <20 cm dbh) was found. These willow were used consistently as perches by the male, along with taller shrub species. In terms of vegetation composition, the Isthmus nest patch appeared to be relatively similar to that of the nest site found at Waneta in 2004 (Machmer et al. 2004; Dulisse et al. 2005; Figure 6, k&l). The latter consisted of rose, saskatoon, mallow ninebark, ocean spray, beaked hazelnut, willow spp., alder (Alnus crispa), and orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata). The nest patch was located within a powerline corridor right-of-way that had not recently been brushed. Repeated brushing in the past had resulted in a low (≤2 m) but well-developed shrub layer (Figure 6, k&l). The nest itself was near the northern margin of the territory, and was constructed 0.76 m off the ground in a 1.6-m-high mallow ninebark shrub. Perches consistently used by the male were in denser willow thickets (1.5 to over 4 m in height). Perch Substrate – In 2005, males were observed perching on shrub species (i.e., saskatoon, snowberry, hazelnut, ocean spray) and tree species (i.e., willow, aspen) ranging in height from 1.2 to 6 m. Actual perch heights ranged from about 1 to 5 m (Appendix 1c; Territory Description). 3.4.4 Breeding Territory Fidelity The chat breeding territory occupied at Waneta in 2004 was not re-occupied in 2005, although a singing male was detected there once, on June 20, 2005. Active breeding territories in 2005 were found in nearby (i.e., within a 500 m radius) areas with relatively similar exposure, site and vegetation characteristics. Based on investigations of chats banded in 2001-2002 in the South Okanagan, the average return rate to the valley from 2002-2003 was estimated at 27% (Morgan et al., unpublished manuscript). Selected birds returned to their natal sites or areas relatively close by, others shifted to new parts of the valley, and a portion of the population consists of birds immigrating from other areas. Without additional information and based on available findings from other areas, there is a reasonable expectation that recently active chat breeding territories or suitable chat habitat nearby will be re-occupied at some later date (C. Bishop, pers. comm.).



3.5 Incidental Observations An additional 98 bird species (82 in Creston and 67 in Waneta) were detected during surveys and listed in Appendix 1d (Incidental Survey Data) and Appendix 2. The number of stations at which a particular bird was detected within the Creston and Waneta areas is also provided, as an index of relative abundance. Four species currently listed by the Conservation Data Centre (Double-crested Cormorant – red-listed; Great Blue Heron – blue-listed; Sandhill Crane – blue-listed; and American White Pelican – red-listed) were detected during surveys, and Forster’s Tern and Western Grebe (both red-listed) was observed incidentally. Previous breeding and/or sighting records are available for all of these species from the Creston Valley and/or Waneta areas (Campbell et al. 1996, 2001; Van Damme 2002; see reviews in Wilson et al. 2005 and Machmer et al. 2004). Most notable of the observations in Appendix 2 was the detection of an Alder Flycatcher in Creston. This species is considered very rare in the southern portion of the Southern Interior Mountains Ecoprovince (Campbell et al. 2001) and has not previously been recorded in the Creston Valley (Van Damme 2002; M.A. Beaucher, pers. comm.). Similarly the Brewer’s Sparrow (detected at a single station at Fort Shepherd) is a new sighting for this area. Two races of the latter species are known in BC and they are usually distinguished by their habitat preferences and range distributions. S.b. breweri is typically associated with arid big sagebrush shrubbe-steppe and S.b.traverneri generally occurs in mountainous subalpine shrub regions near timberline (Campbell et al. 2001). S.b. breweri is known from the Southern Interior Ecoprovince (provincially red-listed) and may extend north into the Central Interior, whereas S.b.traverneri is known from extreme northwestern BC, from the Central Interior and from the Southern Interior Mountains at Elko north to Thompson Pass (see Campbell et al. 2001). The individual at Fort Shepherd was using dry grassland/ shrubland-dominated habitat near the Columbia River valley bottom, and further investigation is needed to identify the subspecies and confirm whether it is breeding locally. 4.0 Summary, Recommendations and Conclusions Based on work in 2005, there is a small population of yellow-breasted chats breeding in the West Kootenay. Chats were detected at 2.9% and 13.5% of stations sampled near Creston and Waneta, respectively. There were no detections at any of the stations surveyed in the Fort Shepherd or Fruitvale areas. Follow-up monitoring confirmed the presence of one active breeding territory in Creston and at least two territories near Waneta. A third breeding territory near Waneta was considered likely, based on the persistent presence of a singing male, but a female was never confirmed. Suitable habitat in the Waneta area appeared to be relatively confined to lower elevation, south to west-facing aspects on mesic shrub-dominated sites located upstream of the Waneta Dam and within about 1.5 km of the Waneta Reservoir. In the


Survey for Endang

Pandion E



Creston Valley, suitable habitat appeared more abundant and widespread. Not all suitable areas could be surveyed in 2005, because of time and funding constraints and land status (i.e., several highly suitable areas were on reserve or private lands outside of the Creston Valley Management Area, where our surveys were concentrated). The one active nest found at Waneta fledged three young in 2005, but the fate of the other breeding territories could not be conclusively determined. Intensive monitoring did not uncover any nests or fledglings, suggesting that breeding attempts failed. Estimated territory sizes ranged from 0.48 – 2.52 ha and these are relatively consistent with those reported in the South Okanagan (mean = 0.71 ha and range of 0.08 – 3.68 ha; Morgan et al., unpublished manuscript). All four territories were dominated by shrubby vegetation (mean = 61.2% cover), and grasses/forbs (mean = 20.5%), trees (mean = 14.2%), water (2.7%) and bare ground (1%) comprised the remainder of breeding territory cover. Dominant shrub species were ocean spray, saskatoon, snowberry, rose spp., mallow ninebark, and beaked hazelnut. The vegetation structure of territories in the West Kootenay was consistent with that reported for the South Okanagan population (Morgan et al. unpublished manuscript), although the vegetation composition differed somewhat, as would be expected in the different biogeoclimatic subzones. A “working definition” of critical habitat for chats in southeastern BC comprises the known active territories mapped in this report, as well as active nests (and a one ha area centered on nest locations) fund in previous years (i.e., 2004 Waneta territory; C. Bishop, pers. comm.). Land status, ownership and management issues and/or concerns in relation to specific these breeding territories (2004-2005) are summarized in Table 5, along with recommendations for management, conservation and stewardship. These recommendations are made under the assumption that there is a reasonable expectation that these territories, or areas close by, are likely to be occupied by breeding chats in future years. General recommendations relevant to the inventory, research, management and conservation of suitable chat breeding habitat in southeastern BC include the following:

1. Conduct additional surveys for chat breeding activity in portions of the Creston Valley that were not surveyed during 2005. There are extensive reserve lands along the Lower Kootenay River outside of the CVWMA that should be surveyed. Furthermore, weather conditions during May 2005 were relatively wet and cool (especially on days spent in Creston) and this may have influenced early season chat activity. There would be some value in repeating one round of surveys during dry, warmer conditions at stations previously surveyed.

2. Target active breeding territories from 2004−2005 and adjacent suitable habitats

for further chat breeding activity monitoring, particularly as it relates to current RoW management and future proposed hydroelectric development in the Waneta area. Use monitoring findings to update mapping of active and highly suitable chat breeding habitat. This is a first step to securing/delineating potential lands for future habitat conservation or stewardship efforts, respectively.


Table 5. Management, conservation and stewardship recommendations for specific chat breeding territories.

Territory Land Status Contact Issues/Concerns Recommendations Summit

2005 Wildlife

Management Area

M.A. Beaucher, Area Manager, CVWMA Creston (250) 402-6900

- Vehicle access to this site is restricted to management area staff. A locked gate (at the campground entrance from Highway 3) permits only non-motorized use of this area by the general public, and the site receives little human disturbance. The CVWMA should be made aware of the territory location and the potential for chats to be breeding there, or nearby in suitable habitat.

- Any dyke brushing or other maintenance activities should not be conducted in this territory (or in suitable chat breeding habitat nearby) during the breeding period (May to mid-August). Brushing outside of the breeding period should attempt to maintain the existing shrub density at or near 2 m height and occasional taller shrubs for perching. - Livestock use of this area (and other suitable chat breeding habitat nearby) should not be discouraged to prevent trampling, browsing, invasive weed spread and a potential increase in cowbird parasitism.

Isthmus 2005

Private B. Duncan, Senior Biologist

Teck Cominco Metals Ltd. Trail (250) 364-4336

- This area borders the Waneta-Nelway Road to the north and the Waneta Reservoir to the south. An old weedy wagon trail cuts across the territory and downslope to the reservoir. Continued invasive weed encroachment downslope from the Waneta-Nelway Road has the potential to reduce habitat suitability of this area for chats. - Portions of this area support a rare native grassland plant community (Sumac-bluebunch wheatgrass) and listed butterflies use this slope as well (Kondla 2004). Poison ivy is scattered through this area and the public should be discouraged from accessing the water using the wagon trail.

- ATV, vehicle, bike or other use of the old weedy wagon trail should be avoided to prevent further erosion and weed spread. Some patches of bare ground closer to the road could be planted with native shrubs and grasses to limit further invasive weed establishment and spread. - A sign indicating that this property is privately owned should be established to discourage trespassing. Livestock use of this area (and other suitable chat breeding habitat nearby) should not be permitted. - The CBFWCP or a wildlife/ habitat or land conservation organization should consider acquiring this property to protect the plant communities, low shrubland habitat, and dependent rare species.



Territory Land Status Contact Issues/Concerns Recommendations Alfalfa 2005

Private B. Duncan, Senior Biologist


- This area borders the Waneta-Nelway and Seven Mile Roads to the north and the Waneta Reservoir to the south. Continued invasive weed encroachment down slope from the roads above has the potential to reduce habitat suitability of this area for chats. - Portions of this area support a rare native grassland plant community (Sumac-bluebunch wheatgrass) and listed butterflies are known to use areas close by with similar habitat (Kondla 2004). Poison ivy is scattered through this area and the public should be discouraged from accessing the area.

- Some patches of bare ground and/or weedy patches closer to the road could be planted with native shrubs and grasses to limit further invasive weed establishment and spread. - A sign indicating that this property is privately owned should be established to discourage trespassing. Livestock use of this area (and other suitable chat breeding habitat nearby) should not be permitted. - The CBFWCP or a wildlife/ habitat or land conservation organization should consider acquiring this property (including the Isthmus territory to the west) to protect the plant communities, low shrubland habitat, and dependent rare species.

Highliner 2005

Private & BC Hydro ROW

H. Buckley, Land Owner (District Lot 3617)

& BC Hydro, Transmission

- This territory covers a large private lot adjacent to the BC Hydro 5L98 transmission line access road and ROW. The male chat was using shrubs and trees along the edge of the ROW for perching and was observed flying across the ROW on a few occasions. The access road and ROW are heavily infested with spotted knapweed and weeds are encroaching into open/dryer rockier patches within the territory, and suitable adjacent habitat. The access road and ROW are subject to periodic vehicle use and maintenance. The latter involves periodic shrub and tree cutting/thinning and herbicide use. - The access road is proposed as the route to construct and maintain the proposed Waneta Expansion Project (WEP) transmission line (adjacent and to the north of the existing BC Hydro line;

- BC Hydro should be informed of the existence of an active chat breeding territory on their ROW and the need to avoid line maintenance activities during the breeding period (May to August). - A dialogue should be initiated with BC Hydro regarding possible alternatives to routine line maintenance practices in order to protect and/or enhance chat habitat along this ROW. The scheduling and nature of weed management activities along the access road and ROW should be re-evaluated in order to ensure that weeds do not further encroach into suitable chat habitats. - Similarly, a dialogue should be initiated with CPC to ensure that potential impacts to existing and suitable chat habitat in this area are avoided during construction and


Survey for Endang

Pandion E



Territory Land Status Contact Issues/Concerns Recommendations Machmer et al. 2005). Construction is planned for September 2008 to 2010 will involve ROW vegetation clearing, access trail establishment, and structure site placement near the existing chat territory. Subsequent maintenance will involve periodic vegetation management including shrub and tree cutting/thinning and herbicide use. - Livestock use of this area was observed in late summer/fall of 2005.

maintenance of the new line. - Some patches of bare ground and/or weedy patches closer to the road could be planted with native shrubs and grasses to limit further invasive weed establishment and spread. - The CBFWCP or a wildlife/ habitat or land conservation organization should consider acquiring this property (in combination with those closer to the reservoir) to protect the low shrubland habitat and dependent species. - Livestock use of this area (and other suitable chat breeding habitat nearby should be discouraged.

Waneta 2004

Crown & Private (ROW)

B. Duncan, Senior Biologist


- This territory was located on Teck Cominco L71 line ROW and on private land owned by Teck Cominco Metals Ltd. to the south of that ROW. The active nest was located in the ROW (vegetation had not been treated for several years prior to nesting, but shrubs had been repeatedly brushed in the past). The bulk of the breeding territory and the area occupied by a second unpaired male in 2004 is located to the south of the ROW within an elongated strip of tall dense shrubbery that extends southeast to Seven Mile Road. A seep runs along this strip and the area has high habitat suitability. - Spotted knapweed and other invasive species are encroaching from the line into adjacent areas with high habitat suitability for chats.

- Teck Cominco Metals Ltd. is aware of the chat breeding activity and the need to avoid line maintenance activities during the breeding period (May to August). Other nearby areas with chat breeding activity and/or suitable habitat should be brought to their attention, especially where vegetation management is an issue. A dialogue should be initiated regarding possible alternatives to routine line maintenance practices in order to protect and/or enhance chat habitat along this ROW. - The scheduling and nature of weed management activities along the line should also be re-evaluated in order to ensure that weeds do not further encroach into suitable chat habitats. - Similarly, a dialogue should be initiated



Territory Land Status Contact Issues/Concerns Recommendations - This area between the ROW and the vegetated shrubby strip has been proposed as a potential laydown site (Site H) for the WEP. A second laydown site (Site I) is proposed between the strip and the Waneta-Nelway Road. Disturbance in this area could potentially affect chat use and any leaching of oils, lubricants or wood preservatives, etc. into the seepage area from upslope could affect the suitability of the habitat. - The route for the proposed WEP line lies adjacent and to the north of the existing L71 ROW. There is potential for increased weed invasion from the BC Hydro line.

with CPC to ensure that impacts to existing and suitable chat habitat in this area are avoided during construction and maintenance of the new line. If possible, the proposed laydown sites H & I should not be used, in order to avoid potential impacts to chats and their habitat.

Survey for Endang

Pandion E

3. All territories were located in proximity to roads, RoWs or access trails and invasive species (e.g., spotted knapweed,

St. John’s wort, sulphur cinqefoil, etc.) found in abundance nearby could impact chat breeding habitat suitability. Develop and implement a weed management strategy designed to limit further weed establishment and spread in active territories and adjacent suitable habitats. To be successful, this strategy would need to be coordinated with affected landowners and agencies actively working in the valley (CBFWCP, MOF, MOE, Teck Cominco Metals Ltd., BC Hydro, FortisBC, CPC, MOT; see Gwilliam 2003). The strategy should consider types and timing of treatment to minimize impacts on chats, as well as potential non-target effects on rare plant communities and species occurrences.

4. In the limited area where RoWs are located on or adjacent to chat breeding territories (i.e., Teck Cominco L71 line and BC Hydro 5L98 line), consider a variance to standard vegetation management practices to ensure that the density and height of shrub-dominated vegetation is maintained in a state usable by chats. This would entail retaining vegetation height at ≥3 m (in the electrical clearance zone), and ensuring that selected shrubs and trees (3−6 m height) are retained along the along the edge of the electrical clearance zone for perching. Depending on line clearance and limits of approach, this may require more frequent brushing, but will ensure a dense low shrub layer. Retention of taller shrubs will also limit the potential for weed encroachment and the need to use herbicides in chat habitat.


5. It is not known whether this population is expanding with immigrants from other areas. If the number of chats detected locally continues to increase, a banding program for adults and nestlings should be established. This would provide valuable demographic information (e.g., year to year site fidelity, movements, immigration, mortality, survivorship) in relation to chat populations in other jurisdictions.

6. Continue to collaborate with the western yellow-breasted chat Recovery Team by

providing copies of digital data files summarizing all information gathered for the southeastern BC population and providing input on the draft recovery strategy, as necessary.

7. Incidental detections of Alder Flycatcher and Brewer’s Sparrow in Creston and

Waneta areas, respectively should be followed up to determine if individuals are breeding locally, and in the case of the Brewer’s Sparrow, to clarify which subspecies is present.

5.0 Literature Cited Bishop, C.A., A.M. Bezener and R.J. Cannings. 2004. Draft national recovery strategy

for the British Columbia population of the western Yellow-breasted Chat (Icteria virens auricollis). National Recovery Plan No. XX. Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife. Ottawa. XX pp.

Braumandl, T.F. and M.P. Curran. 1992. A field guide for site identification and

interpretation for the Nelson Forest Region. Land Management Handbook No. 20, B.C. Ministry of Forests, Nelson.

Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggert-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser, and

M.C.E. McNall. 1990a. The birds of British Columbia. Volume 1: Nonpasserines, loons through waterfowl. Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, B.C.

Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggert-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser, and

M.C.E. McNall. 1990b. The birds of British Columbia. Volume 2: Nonpasserines, diurnal birds of prey through woodpeckers. Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, B.C.

Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggert-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser, M.C.E.

McNall, and G.E.J. Smith. 1997. The birds of British Columbia. Volume 3: Passerines, flycatchers through vireos. Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, B.C.

Campbell, R.W., N.K. Dawe, I. McTaggert-Cowan, J.M. Cooper, G.W. Kaiser, A.C.

Stewart, and M.C.E. McNall. 2001. The birds of British Columbia. Volume 4:



Passerines, wood warblers through old world sparrows. Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, B.C.

Cannings, R.J. 2000. Status report on yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens). Report

prepared for the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. 20 p.

Cannings, R.A., R.J. Cannings, and S.G. Cannings 1987. Birds of the Okanagan Valley,

British Columbia. R. Br. Columbia Museum, Victoria. Dulisse, J. 1999. Beaver Creek Provincial Park: Rare and Endangered Species

Evaluation. Report prepared by Pandion Ecological Research Ltd. for B.C. Parks, Kootenay Region, Nelson, B.C. 27pp.

Dulisse, J.A., S.R. Ogle and M.M. Machmer. 2005. First nest record for yellow-breasted

chat (Icteria virens auricollis) in southeastern British Columbia. Northwestern Naturalist 86:161-163.

Eckerle, K. P., and C. F. Thompson. 2001. Yellow-breasted Chat (Icteria virens). In The

Birds of North America, No. 575 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The birder’s handbook: a field guide to

the natural history of North American birds. Simon & Schuster, New York. Gwilliam, J. 2003. Pend d’Oreille noxious weed pest management plan 2004-2009.

Ministry of Water, Land & Air Protection and Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Compensation Program, Nelson, BC. 35pp.

Kondla, N. 2004. Field inventory and impact assessment for butterflies, moths and

dragonflies in the Waneta Hydro electric Expansion Project Area. Report prepared for Columbia Power Corporation, Victoria, BC.

Machmer, M.M., C. Steeger, E. McKenzie, B. Murray ad D. Hamilton. 2005. Terrestrial

Environmental Impact Assessment for the Waneta Expansion Project. Waneta Expansion Power Corporation, Castlegar. 86pp.

Martin, T.E., C.R. Paine, C.J. Conway, W.M. Hochachka, P. Allen and W. Jenkins 1997.

BBIRD protocol. Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, USA.

McKibbon, R. 2005. Protocol for yellow breasted chat (Icteria virens auricollis)

productivity study in the South Okanagan, BC. 14pp. Morgan, T.C., C. A. Bishop, and T. D. Williams. (Manuscript submitted ). Habitat

Fragmentation, Cowbird Parasitism and Limiting Factors for a Critically Small



Population of Western Yellow-breasted Chat (Icteria virens auricollis) Breeding at the Northwestern Limit of its Range..

Schaeffer, L., L. Datchkoff, S.Bennett and M. Sarrell. 2002. Biodiversity inventory within

the ICHxw at Fort Shepherd. Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program, Nelson, BC. 61pp.

Teck Cominco Metals Ltd. 2004. Trail ecological risk assessment: Living Sumary. Teck

Cominco Metal Ltd. Trail Operations. September 2004. 16pp. Thompson, C. F., V. Nolan, Jr. 1973. Population biology of the Yellow-breasted Chat

(Icteria virens L.) in southern Indiana. Ecol. Monogr. 43: 145–171. Van Damme, L.M. 2002 Creston Valley Checklist of birds. Wild Bird Trust Special

Publication No. 7., West Vancouver, BC. 15pp. Wilson, S., C. Steeger, M.M. Machmer, L. Betts, R. Morley and C. Morley. 2004. Habitat

management plan for the Creston Wildlife Management Area. Report prepared for the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area, Creston, BC.



Appendix 1. Digital Data Files (on CD-rom)

a. Chat Survey Data

b. Chat Records

c. Territory Descriptions

d. Incidental Survey Data



Appendix 2. Other Bird Species Detections. Number of Stations Species Common Name Species Scientific Name Species

Code Total Creston Waneta Alder Flycatcher Emphidonax alnorum ALFL 1 1 0 American Coot Fulica americana AMCO 2 2 0 American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos AMCR 25 21 4

American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis AMGO 12 8 4 American Kestrel Falco sparverius AMKE 3 1 2

American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla AMRE 14 6 8 American Robin Turdus migratorius AMRO 39 14 25

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos AMWP 2 2 0 Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BAEA 2 2 0

Barrow's Goldeneye Bucephala islandica BAGO 6 6 0 Bank Swallow Riparia riparia BANS 6 4 2 Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica BARS 3 2 1

Black-billed Magpie Pica hudsonia BBMA 2 2 0 Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapilla BCCH 12 4 8

Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon BEKI 2 2 0 Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater BHCO 28 17 11 Black-headed Grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus BHGR 17 10 7

Black Tern Chlidonias niger BLTE 13 13 0 Brewer's Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus BRBL 1 0 1 Brewer's Sparrow Spizella breweri BRSP 1 0 1 Bullock's Oriole Icterus bullockii BUOR 17 14 3 Canada Goose Branta canadensis CAGO 4 1 3

Calliope Hummingbird Stellula calliope CAHU 12 6 6 Cassin's Vireo Vireo cassinii CAVI 2 0 2

Chestnut-backed Chickadee Poecile rufescens CBCH 1 1 0 Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum CEDW 23 5 18

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina CHSP 20 1 19 Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota CLSW 17 7 10

Common Loon Gavia immer COLO 1 1 0 Common Merganser Mergus merganser COME 3 3 0 Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor CONI 3 2 1

Common Raven Corvus corax CORA 18 6 12 Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago COSN 10 8 2

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas COYE 23 22 1 Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus DCCO 4 4 0

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis DEJU 3 0 3 Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens DOWO 6 4 2

Dusky Flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri DUFL 4 0 4 Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus EAKI 18 12 6

European Starling Sturnus vulgaris EUST 1 0 1 Gadwall Anas strepera GADW 1 1 0

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias herodias GBHE 11 10 1 Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis GRCA 39 19 20

Hammond's Flycatcher Empidonax hammondii HAFL 2 0 2 Herring Gull Larus argentatus HEGU 6 6 0 House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus HOFI 2 0 2 House Wren Troglodytes aedon HOWR 2 0 2

Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus LEFL 14 10 4 Lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena LZBU 17 1 16

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos MALL 7 7 0



Number of Stations Species Common Name Species Scientific Name Species Code Total Creston Waneta

Marsh Wren Anas platyrhynchos MAWR 3 3 0 MacGillivray's Warbler Oporornis tolmiei MGWA 11 3 8

Morning Dove Zenaida macroura MODO 4 3 1 Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla NAWA 1 0 1 Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis atricapillus NOGO 1 0 1 Northern Shoveller Anas clypeata NORS 1 1 0

Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis NOWA 8 6 2 Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis NRWS 22 12 10

Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata OCWA 7 0 7 Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi OSFL 1 1 0

Osprey Pandion haliaetus OSPR 9 5 4 Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps PBGR 8 8 0

Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus PISI 2 2 0 Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus PIWO 3 1 2

Pacific-slope Flycatcher Empidonax difficilis PSFL 2 1 1 Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis RBNU 7 2 5

Redhead Aythya americana REDH 2 2 0 Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus REVI 38 11 27

Ring-Necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus RIPH 3 3 0 Ring-necked Duck Phasianus colchicus RNDU 1 1 0

Red-naped Sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis RNSA 7 3 4 Red-shafted Flicker Colaptes auratus RSFL 8 4 4

Red-tailed Hawk Colaptes auratus RTHA 9 4 5 Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis RUDU 1 1 0

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus RWBL 16 13 3 Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis SACR 2 2 0 Say's Phoebe Sayornis saya SAPH 1 0 1

Sora Porzana carolina SORA 8 8 0 Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia SOSP 52 29 23

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia SPSA 3 1 2 Spotted Towhee Actitis macularia SPTO 20 2 18

Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus SWTH 17 9 8 Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor TRES 30 19 11 Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura TUVU 4 3 1 Vaux's Swift Chaetura vauxi VASW 1 1 0

Veery Catharus fuscescens VEER 17 4 13 Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus VESP 4 0 4

Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina VGSW 6 4 2 Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus WAVI 17 10 7

Western Kingbird Vireo gilvus WEKI 4 0 4 Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana WETA 13 4 9

Western Wood Pewee Contopus sordidulus WEWP 35 16 19 Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii WIFL 11 8 3 Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pusilla WIWA 1 1 0

Wood Duck Aix sponsa WODU 3 3 0 Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus YHBL 12 12 0

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia YWAR 68 33 35 Totals - 98 986 527 459


survey for endangered yellow-breasted chat breeding

Documents