Baseline Assessment Mist Mountain Report 25 March 2009

Matrix Project 7307 LGL Project EA3014
Mist Mountain Coalbed Gas Project

Baseline Assessment of Wildlife Resources
Final Report for 2008 Studies

Prepared for
Prepared by
LGL Limited
environmental research associates
9768 Second Street
Sidney, British Columbia, V8L 3Y8
25 March 2009
Mist Mountain Coalbed Gas Project: Baseline Assessment of Wildlife Resources
FINAL REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As part of BP Canada Energy Company’s (BP Canada) Mist Mountain Coalbed Gas Project,
baseline information is required for wildlife species in the project area to assist in the future
environmental assessment for the Project. BP Canada has contracted Matrix Solutions Inc.
(Matrix) as the lead for the environmental baseline studies. Several wildlife species and groups
were selected as indicators for the wildlife resources baseline assessment. The indicators selected
are: grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), moose (Alces alces), elk (Cervus elaphus), Rocky Mountain
bighorn sheep (Ovis canadenis), mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus), badger (Taxidea taxus),
tailed frog (Ascaphus montanus), northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), and songbirds.
LGL Limited (LGL) was contracted by Matrix to conduct wildlife baseline assessments for
moose, elk, bighorn sheep, mountain goat, and songbirds. In addition, the presence of small/mid-
sized carnivores and their prey was recorded during a winter track count survey. Baseline
conditions for each indicator was assessed by reviewing existing information, conducting field
surveys , and estimating the availability of wildlife habitat in the Wildlife Study Area.
There are two separate study areas for this project, the Mist Mountain Wildlife Study Area
(WSA) and the Mist Mountain Coalbed Gas Project Area. Both are located in the Kootenay
Region (British Columbia (BC) Ministry of Environment Region 4) of southeast British
Columbia. The Mist Mountain WSA is approximately 1,314 km2 and the Mist Mountain Coalbed
Project Area is a smaller area nested within the Mist Mountain WSA and is an area of interest for
investigating potential resource development
The WSA is located in the Northern Continental Divide Ecoregion with the majority of the study
area within the Elk Valley Ecosection. The ecoregion is mountainous between 1200–3600 m
above sea level (asl). Climate in the WSA is dominated by easterly movements of air masses that
produce cool wet winters and dry warm summers (Forsite Consultants Ltd. 2004).
Field Surveys
As part of the baseline assessment, LGL conducted the following field surveys in the WSA in
2008:
1. Winter Aerial Reconnaissance Survey
2. Ground Transects
3. Winter Mountain Goat Aerial Survey
4. Songbird Point-count Surveys
The late winter 2008 distribution of wildlife in WSA based on the aerial reconnaissance survey
and ground transects, had moose, elk, and deer found in lower elevations and in drier
ecosystems, and furbearers and their prey distributed throughout the WSA with the highest
distribution in mid elevation mild woodland ecosystems. Snowshoe hare, red squirrel, marten,
weasel sp., moose, and coyote were the most abundant sightings, comprising a combined total of
84% of the records from the winter snow tracking ground transect survey.
During the aerial survey, 39 mountain goats were observed at 17 locations in the alpine and
krummholz habitats of the Continental Divide. Group sizes ranged from 1 to 10 (mean = 2.3). No
goats or goat tracks were observed on the Michel, Limestone, Foisey, or Corrigan Ridges.
FINAL REPORT i
Mountain goats and tracks were located primarily between 1800–2300 m above sea level, on
southerly slopes 25-55 degrees.
A total of 259 6-minute point-count surveys were conducted within seven different
biogeoclimatic subzones during June, 2008. Seventy-three species of birds, including resident
species, short-distance, and neotropical migrants were documented. The surveys coincided with
the height of breeding activity and as such, all species detected are assumed to have been
breeding in the proposed WSA.
The greatest diversity of avian species occurred in lower elevation biogeoclimatic zones,
particularly within the ICHmk1 subzone along the lower Elk River in the western portions of the
WSA. High elevation conifer forests supported fewer individuals and species. Mixed-forests
supported the greatest densities of birds, especially at low elevations where mixed-wood habitat
types are were abundant. Higher elevations contained mostly pure coniferous forests and, as a
result, these habitats proved to support the greatest numbers of birds at those altitudes but with
an overall lower diversity than low elevation habitats. The most abundant species throughout the
WSA was Warbling Vireo, with Yellow-rumped Warbler and MacGillivray’s Warbler also being
detected in very large numbers. The Olive-sided Flycatcher, a “species at risk” species, was
detected during the surveys.
Habitat Availability
In addition to the surveys, winter habitat suitability models were developed for moose, elk,
bighorn sheep, and mountain goat using Resource Selection Probability Functions (RSPF) to
estimate the available area of winter habitats (Lele and Keim 2006). The Resource Selection
Probability Function Model is a function that computes the probability (or relative probability if
scaled proportionately to a particular resource type) that a particular resource type, as
characterized by a combination of environmental variables, will be selected by an individual
animal if encountered. Unlike expert and literature-based Habitat Suitability Index models,
resource selection models (RSPF) estimate the probability (0.0 to 1.0) of habitat selection from
wildlife observation data, which is considerably less subjective.
The findings for moose and elk indicate snow has a large influence on winter habitat use, where
low elevation areas with a combination of open foraging habitats within short distance of
coniferous snow intercepting habitats are selected as key habitats. High and moderately high
winter habitats for moose and elk were found throughout low elevation areas in the Wildlife
WSA (18% and 3% respectively). These findings are similar to winter habitat use by moose and
elk reported in the Kootenay Region.
Mountain goat and bighorn sheep winter habitat use is influenced by the distance to escape
terrain, warm aspects, and open terrain; however snow depth does influence bighorn sheep where
sheep will use similar habitats at lower elevations in dry ecosystems in the southwest portion of
the WSA and use similar habitats at higher elevations in the wetter, higher snow load ecosystems
in the remaining portion of the WSA. Overall, high and moderately high value habitats are
limited in the WSA and known habitat use by bighorn sheep and mountain goats was limited to
the periphery of the WSA. These findings are similar to winter habitat use by mountain goat and
bighorn sheep reported in the Kootenay Region.
The moose, elk, and mountain goat RSPF models had a strong fit to the WSA and predict
reasonably well the resource selection for moose, elk, and mountain goat across the geographic
FINAL REPORT ii
extent of the WSA. The bighorn sheep RSPF model had a good fit to the WSA, but selection
probabilities had to be scaled as index of habitat quality given measurement error associated with
used observations.
A furbearer winter habitat model was subjectively derived based on furbearer Habitat Suitability
Index models from other studies and then calibrated from the snow tracking field data. The
furbearer model is useful to identify potential areas of higher habitat values in the WSA. The
main model outcomes indicate selection for high and moderate value habitats and avoidance of
nil value habitats. High and moderate value habitats are estimated to be tall mature or old growth
coniferous stands, moderate to dense crown closure, with stand structure such as snags or
blowdown.
An avian richness model was developed using the 4 class rating provincial system (RISC 1999)
and is based on the potential number of species by habitat types found in the WSA during the
spring survey, expert knowledge, and literature. The vegetated area of the Mist Mountain WSA
includes ~123,038 ha of vegetated habitat. These habitats were ranked as high (~6,769 ha);
moderate (~25,745 ha), low (~66,609) and nil (~32,292 ha) for potential songbird richness in the
WSA. Vegetated polygons given a ranking of nil included non-productive burns, not-sufficiently
restocked polygons, open range, and polygons assigned as non-productive in the Vegetation
Resource Inventory (VRI) dataset.
Species richness potential is highest (i.e., high and moderate ratings) in the lower elevation areas
around the perimeter of the WSA boundary and within low lying valley bottoms of Coal Creek in
the west, Lodgepole Creek in the south, Flathead River in the southeast, Michel Creek in the
north, east, and south, and Alexander Creek in the north.
FINAL REPORT iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................................1
2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ...................................................................................................................................1
3 STUDY AREAS..................................................................................................................................................2
3.1 BIOPHYSICAL DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................2
3.2 ANTHROPOGENIC DISTURBANCE .................................................................................................................3
4 WILDLIFE HISTORICAL INFORMATION REVIEW...............................................................................5
4.1 REVIEW OF CENSUS INFORMATION / DATA .................................................................................................6
4.1.1 Elk..........................................................................................................................................................6
4.1.2 Moose.....................................................................................................................................................7
4.1.3 Mountain Goat.......................................................................................................................................8
4.1.4 Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep.............................................................................................................9
4.1.5 Furbearers ...........................................................................................................................................11
4.1.6 Songbirds .............................................................................................................................................12
4.2 REVIEW OF WILDLIFE HABITAT INFORMATION .........................................................................................14
4.2.1 Elk........................................................................................................................................................14
4.2.2 Moose...................................................................................................................................................15
4.2.3 Mountain Goat.....................................................................................................................................15
4.2.4 Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep...........................................................................................................16
4.2.5 Furbearers ...........................................................................................................................................17
4.2.6 Songbirds .............................................................................................................................................18
5 WILDLIFE FIELD SURVEYS.......................................................................................................................18
5.1 PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................................18
5.2 METHODS...............................................................................................................................................19
5.2.1 Aerial Reconnaissance Survey Methods ..............................................................................................19
5.2.2 Winter Ground Transect Methods .......................................................................................................19
5.2.3 Mountain Goat Aerial Survey Methods ...............................................................................................20
5.2.4 Songbird Point-Count Methods ...........................................................................................................20
5.3 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS ...........................................................................................................................21
5.3.1 Aerial Reconnaissance Survey Results ................................................................................................21
5.3.2 Winter Ground Transect Results..........................................................................................................22
5.3.3 Mountain Goat Aerial Survey Results..................................................................................................25
5.3.4 Songbird Point-count Survey Results...................................................................................................26
6 HABITAT AVAILABILTY ............................................................................................................................37
6.1 MOOSE WINTER HABITAT .........................................................................................................................38
6.2 ELK WINTER HABITAT ..............................................................................................................................39
6.3 MOUNTAIN GOAT WINTER HABITAT.........................................................................................................40
6.4 BIGHORN SHEEP WINTER HABITAT ...........................................................................................................41
6.5 FURBEARER WINTER HABITAT..................................................................................................................43
6.6 AVIAN RICHNESS MODEL ..........................................................................................................................43
7 SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................................44
8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................................................44
9 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS ..............................................................................................................45
10 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................45
11 APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................................................51
FINAL REPORT iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.The distribution and concentration of Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification (BEC) Zones summarized
for the Mist Mountain Wildlife Study Area.................................................................................................3
Table 2.The anthropogenic disturbance features summarized for the Mist Mountain Wildlife Study Area..................4
Table 3.The distribution of permanent disturbance summarized for the Wildlife Study and Project Areas..................5
Table 4.Elk population survey results summarized for the East Kootenay Region. ......................................................7
Table 5.Recent moose population survey results summarized for part of the East Kootenay Region...........................8
Table 6.Survey totals (uncorrected) for Elk Valley bighorn sheep (from Teske and Forbes 2002). .............................9
Table 7. Species status classes summarized of the British Columbia Conservation Data Centre lists. .......................12
Table 8. Avian species with provincial (CDC) or federal (COSEWIC) status as species at risk occurring in and
around the proposed Mist Mountain Coalbed Gas Project Area................................................................13
Table 9.Habitat codes used to describe the known or presumed habitat for each songbird detection. ........................21
Table 10.BEC subzone, proportion of total area, and target minimum number of songbird point-count stations per
BEC subzone. ............................................................................................................................................21
Table 11.The encounter rate of wildlife observations summarized for each BEC Subzone in the study area.............23
Table 12.The distribution of wildlife observations by BEC subzone during a mountain goat aerial survey in the Mist
Mountain Wildlife Study Area. .................................................................................................................26
Table 13.Area of BEC subzones within the study area, the number of point-counts per subzone, and the number of
point-counts per 1000 ha (to correct for the variable size of each subzone)..............................................27
Table 14.Number of bird species detected in each biogeoclimatic subzone and habitat type sampled, including the
average number of species detected per point-count (PC). An asterisk (*) denotes subzones that did not
receive adequate coverage and therefore the averages presented are not considered accurate. .................28
Table 15.Bird species and number of detections in the IDFun subzone. PC = Point-count. .......................................29
Table 16.Bird species and number of detections in the ICHmk1 subzone. .................................................................30
Table 17.Bird species and number of detections in the MSdk subzone.......................................................................31
Table 18.Bird species and number of detections in the ESSFwm subzone. ................................................................32
Table 19.Bird species and number of detections in the ESSFwmw subzone. .............................................................33
Table 20.Bird species and number of detections in the ESSFdk1 subzone. ................................................................34
Table 21.Bird species and number of detections in the ESSFdkw subzone. ...............................................................35
Table 22. Model approach used to develop habitat suitability ratings for wildlife indicators in the Wildlife Study
Area ...........................................................................................................................................................37
Table 23.Moose winter habitat availability summarized for the Project and Wildlife Study Areas............................39
Table 24.Elk winter habitat availability summarized for the Project and Wildlife Study Areas. ................................40
Table 25.Mountain goat winter habitat availability summarized for the Project and Wildlife Study Areas. ..............41
Table 26.Bighorn sheep winter habitat availability summarized for the Project and Wildlife Study Areas................42
Table 27.Furbearer winter habitat values summarized for the Project Area and Wildlife Study Area........................43
Table 28.Songbird richness habitat values summarized for the Project Area and Wildlife Study Area......................44
FINAL REPORT v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.Uncorrected* aerial survey totals for the Elk Valley (east side) bighorn sheep herd from 1981 – 2002.
Average total = 211.5 ± 19.2 sheep (n=11). Adapted from Teske and Forbes (2002)...............................10
Figure 2.Percentage breakdown of 2382 wildlife observations collected along 35 transects (includes 39 records for
one transect with no GPS data). The numbers of animals associated with the track records are not
indicated. Mist Mountain Wildlife Study Area, February 2008. ..............................................................23
Figure 3.Encounter rate of ungulates summarized by BEC Subzone in the Wildlife Study Area. ..............................24
Figure 4.Encounter rate of furbearers summarized by BEC Subzone in the Wildlife Study Area. .............................24
Figure 5.Encounter rate of small animals summarized by BEC Subzone in the Wildlife Study Area. .................. 25
LIST OF MAPS
Map 1.The Mist Mountain Wildlife Study Area and Mist Mountain Coalbed Gas Project Area located in southeast
British Columbia. ..........................................................................................................................................83
Map 2.The Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification Zones (BEC) and Ecosection boundaries delineated for the
study area. .....................................................................................................................................................84
Map 3.Wildlife Management Units located near the Wildlife Study Area..................................................................85
Map 4.The distribution of ground transects surveyed during wildlife winter ground surveys conducted in February
2008...............................................................................................................................................................86
Map 5.The distribution of wildlife sightings observed during aerial reconnaissance surveys flown in February 2008.
.......................................................................................................................................................................87
Map 6.The distribution of mountain goat observations recorded during a mountain goat aerial survey in the Mist
Mountain Wildlife Study Area. .....................................................................................................................88
Map 7.Distribution of songbird point-count stations in the Wildlife Study Area........................................................89
Map 8.The winter moose RSPF estimated habitat values distributed in the Wildlife Study Area...............................90
Map 9.The winter elk RSPF habitat model values distributed in the Wildlife Study Area. ........................................91
Map 10.The mountain goat RSPF estimated winter habitat model values distributed in the Wildlife Study Area. ....92
Map 11.The winter bighorn sheep RSPF habitat model values distributed in the Wildlife Study Area. .....................93
Map 12.The winter furbearer estimated habitat model values distributed in the Wildlife Study Area........................94
Map 13.Potential songbird species richness estimated for the Wildlife Study Area. ..................................................95
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1.Wildlife Survey Data and Forms..............................................................................................................51
Appendix 2.Wildlife Habitat Models...........................................................................................................................51
Appendix 3.Habitat preferences and distribution of commonly found bird species located in the WSA....................69
Appendix 4.Number of bird detections and the number of species detected in each habitat type for specific
biogeoclimatic zones that occur in the Mist Mountain Project Area......................................................80
FINAL REPORT vi
1 INTRODUCTION
Baseline information on wildlife resources is required as part of the BP Canada Energy
Company (BP Canada), Mist Mountain Coalbed Gas Project (the Project). BP Canada has
contracted Matrix Solutions Inc. (Matrix) to coordinate the environmental baseline
studies. Several wildlife species and species-groups were selected as indicators for the
wildlife baseline assessment. Wildlife indicators were selected based on a review of the
known wildlife resources and concerns identified for the Project Area and through
consultation with regulators and wildlife experts familiar with the Project Area. The
indicators selected were grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), moose (Alces alces), elk (Cervus
elaphus), Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis canadenis), mountain goat (Oreamnos
americanus), badger (Taxidea taxus), Rocky Mountain tailed frog (Ascaphus montanus),
northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), and songbirds.
LGL Limited was hired by Matrix to complete baseline wildlife assessments for moose,
elk, bighorn sheep, mountain goat, and songbirds. In addition, the LGL study included
data collection on the presence of small/mid-sized carnivores (e.g., wolverine (Gulo gulo)
and fisher (Mustela pennati)) and their prey. The baseline assessment was intended to
provide an estimation of current conditions for each indicator through a review of
existing information, completion of reconnaissance-level winter and spring surveys for
species distribution and diversity, and by deriving habitat models to estimate habitat
availability.
2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this report is to provide an estimate of baseline or current conditions for
wildlife, with emphasis on select wildlife indicators (moose, elk, bighorn sheep,
mountain goat, and songbirds) in the Wildlife Study Area (WSA). The scope of work
included:
1. Conduct a review of historical information on wildlife in the WSA, with
emphasis on select wildlife indicators to provide:
a) Background information on habitat use and census and abundance for
select wildlife indicators, and
b) A database of historical animal observations in the WSA that can be
updated as new data is collected.
2. Conduct winter tracking, aerial ungulate and songbird point-count field
surveys to collect information on the presence of ungulates, and furbearers in
late-winter and avian species in spring within the range of habitats in the
WSA to:
a) Identify site-specific habitat resources in the WSA,
b) Document the presence of animals in the WSA, and
c) Collect data and information useful for evaluating the fit of wildlife
habitat models for several wildlife indicators.
Final Report 1
3. Derive models to predict the availability of habitat for selected wildlife

indicators in the WSA. Where applicable data is available, to estimate
resource selection models for wildlife indicators and to evaluate model fit for
all models from historical or newly collected field data.
4. Report on the availability and geographic distribution of habitat types
available for select wildlife indicators in the WSA.
5. Deliver a final report documenting the baseline assessment of select wildlife
indicators in the Project Area that includes: a summary of historical wildlife
information, an analysis and summary of field data collected, a summary of
habitat availability, and an analysis of the rigor of derived habitat models in
the area (as detailed in the objectives above). Included as part of the
deliverable will be spatial data files for derived habitat models and digital data
(spatial and Excel format) for new and historical wildlife observation data
collected.
3 STUDY AREAS
The environmental study area is located south of the District of Sparwood and east of the
City of Fernie. It is comprised of portions of the Flathead River, Michel Creek and Elk
River watersheds. For the environmental studies, there are two separate study areas: the
Mist Mountain WSA and the Mist Mountain Coalbed Gas Project Area (Map 1). The
Mist Mountain WSA is about 1,314 km2, and has been delineated by Matrix to account
for the mobility of wildlife species and to capture the range of habitat features and
availability of habitats in the region. Its boundaries are based on wildlife management
areas, topographic features, rivers, watershed boundaries, and land planning zones. It is
bounded by the Lodgepole Creek and Flathead River drainages to the south, the British
Columbia-Alberta border to east (in part); and the Elk River to west. The northern
boundary is 8 km northeast of the District of Sparwood. The Mist Mountain Coalbed Gas
Project Area (Project Area) is a smaller area nested within the WSA (excluding the
Dominion Coal Blocks and outside of the lower Flathead River Valley) and is an area of
interest for investigating hydrology, hydrogeology, fish and fish habitat, water quality
and vegetation baseline environmental conditions. Both the Project Area and the WSA
are located in the Kootenay Region (British Columbia (BC) Ministry of Environment
Region 4) of southeast British Columbia.
3.1 Biophysical Description

The WSA is located in the Northern Continental Divide Ecoregion with the majority of
the study area within the Elk Valley Ecosection (Map 2). The ecoregion is mountainous
between 1200–3600 m above sea level (asl). At 500–1000 m asl, the Elk River Valley has
the lowest elevation in the study area. Vegetation is stratified by elevation with five
biogeoclimatic ecosystem classification (BEC) zones occurring in the study area (Forsite
Consultants Ltd. 2004) (Table 1; Map 2). The lower elevation BEC zones in the study
area are the Interior Cedar Hemlock and the Interior Douglas-fir zones. The Montane
Final Report 2
Spruce Zone occurs at elevations between the Interior Douglas-Fir Zone and the
Engelmann Spruce - Subalpine Fir Zone. The highest elevation zones are the Engelmann
Spruce - Subalpine Fir and Interior Mountain-heather Alpine zones.
Climate in the WSA is dominated by easterly movements of air masses that produce cool
wet winters and dry warm summers (Forsite Consultants Ltd. 2004). For example, the
City of Fernie, which is located on the western boundary of the WSA, receives on
average 1,175 mm of precipitation including 373 cm of snowfall annually, with higher
snowfalls and colder temperatures occurring at higher elevations and on cooler (e.g.,
north-facing slopes) aspects (Poole and Stuart-Smith 2004). Snowfall generally begins
accumulating in December with higher depths occurring at higher elevations, and higher
snow depths occurring across all elevations between late January and March (Poole and
Stuart-Smith 2004).
The pattern of snowfall in the WSA strongly influences the habitats used by many animal
species (particularly ungulates) during winter. In winter, available habitats become
restricted to areas with less severe snow conditions (e.g., lower snow depths, drier snow,
less impeding snow crust). During late-winter, habitat use may become even more
restricted such that wildlife, particularly ungulates, may be driven to low elevation areas
and or sites where vegetation intercepts snow and/or wind and solar exposure removes
snow cover (Pierce and Peek 1984; Simpson et al. 1988; Van Dyke et al. 1995a).
Table 1.The distribution and concentration of Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification (BEC) Zones
summarized for the Mist Mountain Wildlife Study Area.
BEC Zone Area Percentage (%) of

BEC Zone Name Code (ha) Study Area
Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fir Kootenay Dry Cool ESSF dk 1 42,033 32
Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fir Dry Cool Parkland ESSF dkp 5,282 4
Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fir Dry Cool Woodland ESSF dkw 18,309 14
Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fir Wet Mild ESSF wm 16,755 13
Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fir Wet Mild Parkland ESSF wmp 394 0
Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fir Wet Mild Woodland ESSF wmw 8,204 6
Interior Cedar – Hemlock Kootenay Moist Cool ICH mk 1 21,226 16
Interior Douglas-fir Zone Undifferentiated IDF un 794 1
Interior Mountain-heather Alpine Undifferentiated IMA un 619 0
Montane Spruce Zone Dry Cool MS dk 17,798 14
Total 131,415 100
For more information on the BEC zones and the ecoregions in the WSA visit the BEC
Web home page (http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/becweb ) and the Ecoregion Classification
home page (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/ecology/ecoregions ).
3.2 Anthropogenic Disturbance

There is a high degree of human influence in the WSA. Forestry and coal mining have
occurred in the area for over a century. Transportation corridors, transmission lines,
Final Report 3
wellsites, and pipelines are located in the WSA (Table 2). In addition, a major highway
(e.g. Highway 3) and railroad corridors cross portions of the WSA, and the communities
of Fernie and Sparwood are located in the WSA (Map 1). The area sees year round
recreational uses.
The pattern of human disturbance suggests there are large areas of high human
disturbance at lower elevations and large areas of low disturbance at higher elevations in
the WSA (Map 1; Table 3 ). For most of the year, the areas of low human disturbance
occur primarily at upper elevations, while higher areas of human disturbances are
concentrated in the valley bottoms. For example, the Elk River Valley has more road
access, resource development, and human settlement than the interior of the WSA such as
the Leach Creek area. However, during winter, high elevation areas (e.g., Ptolemy Ridge)
and the interior of the WSA (e.g., Leach Creek area) are accessible by snowmobile.
Table 2. The anthropogenic disturbance features summarized for the Mist Mountain Wildlife Study
Area.
Disturbance Type Source1 Status Area (ha)

Cutblocks BP Canada Temporary 4,385
Cutline BP Canada Temporary 91
Cutline TRIM Temporary 12
Industrial BP Canada Temporary 3,133
Industrial Matrix Temporary 48
Municipal Matrix Permanent 545
Pipeline BP Canada Temporary 108
Transmission Line TRIM Temporary 726
Transportation BP Canada Permanent 136
Transportation Elk Valley Coal Permanent 67
Transportation Tembec Permanent 93
Transportation TRIM Permanent 4,419
Wellsite IHS Temporary 34
1
Source: TRIM = Terrain Resource Inventory Mapping; MSI = Matrix Solutions Inc.; IHS
One factor that may reduce human influences on wildlife during winter is whether access
is maintained or not (e.g., roads are cleared of snow). In areas where road access is not
maintained, the potential for human-wildlife encounters is reduced. As such, the potential
adverse effects on wildlife are presumed to be reduced compared to areas where road
access is maintained during winter (Apps et al. 2004; Apps and McLellan 2006; Cameron
et al. 2005; Ciarniello et al. 2003; Dryer et al. 2002).
Final Report 4
Table 3. The distribution of permanent disturbance summarized for the Wildlife Study and Project
Areas.
Project Area Wildlife Study Area
Distance from Permanent Area
Disturbance (m) (ha) Percentage Area (ha) Percentage
0-100 17,043 26.09 39,646 30.17
100-200 9,151 14.01 18,650 14.19
200-300 6,227 9.53 12,146 9.24
300-400 5,056 7.74 9,709 7.39
400-500 4,121 6.31 7,867 5.99
500-1,000 12,386 18.96 23,548 17.92
1,000-5,000 11,336 17.35 19,842 15.10
Total 65,319 100.00 131,408* 100.00
*It is important to note that generally, Wildlife Study Area totals will equal 1,314 km2 but depending
on the data sources used in the analysis may (raster versus vector data) result in small summary
differences when comparing hectares or metres squared. This is a result of the data source used in
the analysis but overall comparisons can be made using hectares or squared kilometres for both the
Project Area and Wildlife Study Area.
As mentioned, there has been a history of forestry in the WSA, and both the Rocky
Mountain Forest District and the BC Ministry of Environment have identified areas of
Ungulate Winter Range within the WSA. Ungulate Winter Range is a formal designation
under the British Columbia Forest and Range Practices Act, which is designed to identify
habitats that are essential to meet the winter range requirements for selected ungulate
species. There is one approved Ungulate Winter Range designation in the WSA (U-4-
006) for elk, moose, mountain goat, bighorn sheep, and white-tailed deer. The legal order
for the Ungulate Winter Range includes forest cover requirements (i.e., habitat attributes)
that are to be maintained for the ungulate species. These requirements apply to forestry
activities and to any development activity that requires permitting by the BC Ministry of
Forests and Range. The order, the stocking standards, and a map are included in
Appendix 2. (see http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/frpa/uwr/index.html for more
information)
The density and distribution of anthropogenic disturbance/features were considered in
relation to habitat types selected by wildlife.
4 Wildlife Historical Information Review

A review of existing literature and digital inventories was conducted focusing on
information directly related to the WSA, the Rocky Mountain Forest District-BC
Ministry of Forests and Range, and BC Ministry of Environment Region 4 (Kootenay
Region). Wildlife data and information were searched within the provincial Land and
Resources Data Warehouse (www.lrdw.ca), the Species Inventory Database System (SPI,
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wildlife/wsi/spidatasystem.htm ), and the B.C. Species and
Ecosystems Explorer (http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp). Additional information was
obtained by Matrix and BP Canada through their relationship with Ministry of
Environment regional biologists, regional consultants, the Elk Valley Coal Corporation
(now Teck Coal Limited), and Tembec Inc.
Final Report 5
4.1 Review of Census Information / Data

The review of census information / data focused on information that included the WSA
and Region 4. Most of the census information is summarized by wildlife Management
Units (MUs) used by the provincial government for management purposes. The key
MUs, which all or partially cover the WSA are 4-1, 4-2, and 4-23 (Map 3).
4.1.1 Elk
Elk population estimates derived for Region 4 have declined from an estimated 20,000 to
25,000 elk in the early 1990’s to an estimated 16,500 elk in the late 1990’s. This decline
was thought to be caused by several consecutive severe winters and over-hunting
(Bircher et al. 2001). In addition, low ratios of bulls/100 cows and calves/100 cows were
observed, suggesting hunting pressure could have been a contributing factor to a
declining growth rate. Halko and Hebert (1997) conducted an elk census survey and
reported population ratios lower than those reported for 1992; however, management
units surveyed adjacent or partially within the WSA (MUs 4-2 and 4-22) showed no
decline in elk numbers. The Elk Valley Management Unit (4-23) was not surveyed in
1997.
In 2000, the BC Government implemented a five year (2000-2004) elk management plan
for the East Kootenay Region to increase the elk population to pre 1995 levels, and to
maintain bull/cow ratios of 20/100 and calf/cow ratios of 25/100 (Bircher et al. 2001).
As part of the plan, hunting regulations were set to limit the harvest of bull elk to those
with six or more points, and the BC Government committed to elk census inventories
conducted over the five year window (Bircher et al. 2001).
Wilson and Morely (2005) reviewed the BC Government’s elk management plan and
concluded that elk populations had recovered throughout most of the region, and that bull
and calf ratios were higher than targets set in the plan. The population recovery was
linked to several successive mild winters, the success of hunting regulations, and possibly
to low cougar populations. However, the survey data were insufficient to estimate overall
abundance of elk for Region 4. In addition, several areas in the region are thought to still
have low populations of elk, including the Upper Elk Valley and Flathead Valley (Wilson
and Morley 2005). The main population management recommendations coming from the
review and the development of a management plan for 2005-2009 were to continue to use
the population targets established in 2000, to maintain the hunting regulations (i.e., a six
point bull harvest regulation), and to address population inventory gaps for the region.
Acquiring recent information on elk for the WSA indicates there have not been any
surveys in the WSA since 2005. However, the data that are available from surveys
completed in 2003, 2004, and 2005 support the conclusion that elk populations were
stable to increasing in the WSA between 2003-2005.
In 2003, 1,000 (653 cows, 242 calves, 101 bulls, and 4 unclassified) elk were observed in
the Elk Valley Management Unit (4-23; Table 4). The uncorrected calf-cow ratio
calculated for 2003 is 37 calves/100 cows and the bull-cow ratio is 15 bulls/100 cows.
The 2004 inventory of selected winter ranges in management units 4-02, 4-03, and 4-22
documented 2,124 (1,335 cows, 497 calves, and 292 bulls) elk (Table 4). The uncorrected
calf cow ratio calculated for 2004 is 37 calves/100 cows and the bull cow ratio is 21
Final Report 6
bulls/100 cows. The results from an August 2005 survey reported 49 calves/100 cows and
a bull cow ratio of 18 bulls/100 cows with 969 elk observed in management units 4-02,
03, 20, 21, and 22 (Szkorupa 2005).
Table 4. Elk population survey results summarized for the East Kootenay Region.
Year Survey Area MU Total Cows Calves Bulls UC Bull/100 cows Calves/100 cows
2003 Gold Creek 4-03 760 444 157 65 0 15 35
Premier Ridge 4-21 304 164 82 46 12 28 50
Pickering Hills 4-22 367 186 62 119 29 64 33
Elk Valley 4-23 1,000 653 242 101 18 15 37
Total 2,431 1,447 543 331 59 23 38
2004 Cranbrook Chipka Creek Winter R 4-03 374 240 94 40 0 17 39
Grassmere Winter Range 4-02 307 202 74 31 0 15 37
Pickering Hills Winter Range 20 4-22 701 442 153 106 0 24 35
Skookumchuck Winter Range 2004 4-20 421 269 99 53 0 20 37
Steeples Wildhorse Winter Range 4-22 321 182 77 62 0 34 42
Total 2,124 1,335 497 292 0 22 37
2005 4-02 14 8 5 1 2 13 63
4-03 268 155 82 44 0 28 53
4-20 368 228 101 35 4 15 44
4-21 32 18 12 2 0 11 67
4-22 267 106 57 12 92 11 54
Total 949 515 257 94 98 18 50
4.1.2 Moose
Since 2005, annual moose population surveys have occurred within part of the WSA,
adjacent to the WSA, and in the eastern part of Region 4 (Poole 2005; Poole 2006; Poole
et al. 2008). Surveys conducted in the late 1990’s by Halko et al. (2000) occurred in the
same region, but different methods were used to estimate moose populations, making
comparisons with more recently collected data difficult (Poole et al. 2008).
Moose surveys completed in the winter of 2007-08 (Poole et al. 2008) included portions
of the WSA. Surveys competed in 2005, 2006, and 2007 did not occur in the WSA, but
according to Poole et al. (2008), the results from those surveys are comparable to those
obtained for the WSA in 2008.
The 2008 survey included the Lodgepole, Upper Flathead, and Lower Elk Rivers
(Management Units: 4-01, 02, and 23B), all of which are partially located in the WSA
(Map 3; Table 5). Poole et al. (2008) reported an increase in moose numbers from 1999-
2000, but as indicated, the different methods used by Halko et al. (2000) make
comparisons spurious (Poole et al. 2008). More recent surveys (i.e., those conducted
since 2005) provide a better indication of the status of the moose population in the WSA
(Table 5). Poole et al. (2008) reported that moose estimates have been several times
higher than previous abundance estimates used by regional biologists for managing
moose populations in the East Kootenay Region and the population ratios are above or
within guidelines set to maintain stable moose populations in other regions of the
province (Poole 2005).
Final Report 7
Table 5. Recent moose population survey results summarized for part of the East Kootenay Region.
Year Survey Management Estimate Density Bull/100 Calves/100 Sightability* Source
Area Unit (90% (/km2) Cows Cows
CI)
Poole
2005 Moyie 4-05 291+141 0.77 54 31 2.1 2005
Poole
2006 Bull 4-22 456+158 0.78 57-64 28-30 1.79 2006
Poole
St. Mary 4-20 248+49 0.47 82-84 22-24 1.38 2006
Poole et
2007 Lodgepole 4-02 159+9 1.37 40 29 1.09 al. 2008
Poole et
Upper 4-01 137+48 1.15 84 66 2.29 al. 2008
Poole et
2008 Lower Elk 4-23B 475+101 0.6 63 29 1.46 al. 2008
* B.C. Sightability Model- Quayle et al. 2001
Licensed hunting for moose in these MUs is restricted to a Limited Entry Hunting
system, and a quota system for guided hunts has been established.
(http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/hunting/regulations/0809/docs/Region_4.pdf ).
4.1.3 Mountain Goat

Mountain goat inventories have been conducted in Region 4 since the early 1980’s;
however, the areas surveyed have been primarily outside of the WSA. Limited surveys
have occurred in and around the southern portion of the WSA (MU 4-2) in 2000 and
2005, with low numbers reported (12 and 23 respectively) (Poole and Klafki 2005).
Surveys conducted in the Elk Valley (MU 4-23) have occurred in the northern portion of
the management unit outside of the WSA.
Mountain goat inventories completed in the late 1990’s and 2000 in Region 4, but outside
of the WSA, reported low population densities and numbers (Halko and Hebert 2000;
Teske and Forbes 2001). Poole and Klafki (2005) conducted census surveys in 2005 in
management units north, south, and west of the WSA. Poole and Klafki (2005) reported
estimates that were 70 – 250% higher than comparable surveys conducted from 1998-
2001 in Region 4 (Halko and Hebert 2000; Teske and Forbes 2001). In 2005, Poole and
Klafki reported the following census information for mountain goats using a 65%
sightability correction factor:
1) A density of 1.69 mountain goats /km2 and 30 kids/100 ewes in MU 4-23 (Elk
Valley); and
2) A density of 1.26 mountain goats /km2 and 38 kids/100 ewes in MU 4-01 and
4-02 (Flathead River area).
The most recent population survey for mountain goats in the WSA occurred in 2008 as
part of this project, using a total count survey technique where 39 goats in 17 groups (6
juveniles, 18 adults, and 15 unclassified mountain goats) were observed. All mountain
goat observations occurred on the periphery of the WSA and no locations of mountain
Final Report 8
goats were observed in the Project Area, which is similar to the situation observed for
Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (see below).
Hunting of mountain goats in the WSA is closed.
4.1.4 Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep

In 2001 and 2002, population surveys were completed for bighorn sheep that included
portions of the WSA. During those surveys, low habitat capability areas were overlooked
and management units 4-01 and the eastern portion of 4-22 were not surveyed (Teske and
Forbes 2002). As such, the results of these surveys may not be directly applicable to the
WSA. In 2001 and 2002 the Elk Valley (MU 4-23) was also surveyed, although surveys
occurred to the north of the WSA. The highest number of bighorn sheep was documented
during the 2002 surveys, and Teske and Forbes (2002) reported the following trend for
bighorn sheep in MU 4-23:
...The greatest number of sheep observed during an aerial survey of the east and west
sides of the Elk Valley occurred this year with a total of 458 sheep (Table 3, 7).
Historically, the greatest number of sheep observed on both east and west sides of the Elk
Valley was in 1981 with 412 sheep (Table 7; Figure 1). From 1981 – 2002 the average
number of sheep observed on the east side was 211.5 ± 19.2 sheep (n=11). On the west
side, the average number of sheep sighted during the same time period was 94.1 ± 13.6
sheep (n=9).
Since 1973, lamb:ewe ratios have been above 30 lambs: 100 ewes indicating healthy
mid-winter survival. Presently, the Elk Valley sheep population is thriving and has
surpassed our population goal of 400 sheep.
Table 6. Survey totals (uncorrected) for Elk Valley bighorn sheep (from Teske and Forbes 2002).
Herd/subpopulation Date Survey Total West East Lamb:ewe Comments

Elk Valley Feb 1973 Aerial 228 51 177 35.4
Mar 1975 Aerial 189 29 160 58.2
Mar 1979 Aerial 167 57 110 30.5
Mar 1981 Aerial 412 89 323 54.0 No die-off
Feb 1983 Aerial 358 130 228 45.8
Mar 1985 Aerial 298 81 217 40.8
Mar 1986 Aerial 230 65 165 48.1
Jan 1987 Aerial 280 84 196 31.9
Mar 1988 Aerial 251 143 108 48.2
Mar 1990 Aerial 193 39 154 35.6
Mar 1991 Aerial 224 58 166 32.7
Feb 1998 Aerial 253 n/a 253 50.0 east only
Feb 1999 Aerial 217 n/a 217 41.5 east only
Feb 2002 Aerial 458 158 300 43.8
Final Report 9
350
300
Total Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep
250
200
150
100
50
0
1981
1982
1983
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Survey Year
Figure 1. Uncorrected* aerial survey totals for the Elk Valley (east side) bighorn sheep herd from
1981 – 2002. Average total = 211.5 ± 19.2 sheep (n=11). Adapted from Teske and Forbes
(2002).
*(Figure 1 is population trend data adapted from Teske and Forbes (2002) and is the number of sheep
observed in the east side of Elk Valley before applying a sightability correction factor to the data)
As part of a 2008 sheep winter survey conducted by the BC Ministry of Environment, 20
sheep in 5 groups were observed on Erickson Ridge (north of Highway 3), and 216 sheep
in 26 groups were observed within 11 km to the west of the WSA in the Lodgepole Creek
Valley. The sheep in the Lodgepole Creek Valley are considered part of the Wigwam
population. All bighorn sheep were observed on the periphery of the WSA and no
bighorn sheep were observed in the Project Area.
Outside of specific areas in the northeast and southwest portions of the WSA, bighorn
sheep do not use most of the WSA, and are not generally found in the Project Area.
Historically, there have been sheep harvested in the WSA and the Project Area; however,
only 4 locations were in the Project Area since 1975, with last one occurring in 2006 on
Mount Broadwood. Compulsory Inspections require the identification of a kill site but
they are known to have high location error so it is possible the 3 locations on the
periphery of the Project Area were actually in the WSA. In addition, with only 4 bighorn
sheep harvested in the Project Area over 32 years supports the suggestion the Project
Area has low use outside of winter and are not found there in winter. In the WSA, 65
sheep over 32 years were harvested primarily in the Erickson Ridge, Andy Good Creek,
Corbin Creek, Mount Broadwood, Flathead Valley and Lodgepole Creek areas. The use
of habitats within the WSA and Project Area by bighorn sheep is similar to that reported
for mountain goats.
Final Report 10
Hunting for bighorn sheep in the WSA is open, with a quota established for guide
outfitters, which is based on a full curl horn restriction. Any licensed hunters harvesting
bighorn sheep have to complete a Compulsory Inspection with the BC Ministry of
Environment
(http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/hunting/regulations/0809/docs/Region_4.pdf).
4.1.5 Furbearers
The review of furbearers included larger carnivores such as cougar and wolf as well as
meso-carnivores such as wolverine and fisher, but did not include bears. Bears were not
included because they are being studied separately for the Mist Mountain Coalbed Gas
Project.
As expected, furbearer information is patchy for the WSA and most information is
presented as either as general trends or as study-specific data (Mowat 2007). In his
review of large carnivore populations in the Kootenay Region, Mowat (2007) reported
that based on hunter kill data, cougar numbers were thought to be low in the 1980’s,
increased in the 1990’s, and are now decreasing. This trend is thought to be partially
related to the fluctuating elk and deer populations in the region, where several severe
winters after 1995 resulted in drastic declines in numbers of both species. Mowat (2007)
indicated that elk and deer populations have since increased to pre-1995 levels, but
believes that cougar numbers are either being kept low by current hunting pressures or
that cougar populations are lagging behind the prey populations.
Information on wolves is not readily available for the WSA or the East Kootenay, but
based on kill data, it is thought that numbers have increased since the 1990’s (Mowat
2007). In addition, the increase in moose numbers in the region are reportedly supporting
increases in wolf numbers (Mowat 2007).
Weaver (2001) conducted assessments of carnivores in the Flathead River Valley. The
study area used by Weaver (2001) included the portion of the Flathead River Valley in
the WSA and includes information for the Elk River Valley. Weaver’s assessment
reviewed several carnivores’ resiliency to human influences. Resiliency included the
ability to maintain viable populations, ability to forage as habitat fragmentation occurs,
and the ability for juveniles to disperse at a metapopulation scale as human activities
increase. The author looked at a number of species, including furbearers such as marten,
lynx, and wolverine. Both lynx and wolverine were assigned a low resiliency due to low
reproductive rates, vulnerability to trapping, dependency on specific prey and food types,
and sensitivity to human influences. Marten were reported to have a moderate resiliency
due to their moderate reproductive rates when suitable forest structure is available, higher
diversity of prey species and food types, and tolerance to human activities if suitable
habitat is available; however, they are vulnerable to over harvesting by trappers (Weaver
2001). In general, population information for smaller furbearers is limited, but lynx
density in the WSA has been estimated as 0.74/100 km2 in the Michel Creek and Lower
Elk Valley (Apps et al. 2007).
Using trapper return data for the period 1985 – 2000, Weaver (2001) reported an average
harvest of 154 and 76 marten from the Elk River and Flathead River Valleys respectively.
Final Report 11
Lynx and wolverine harvests varied yearly and ranged annually from 0-18 and 0-4
respectively for the same areas.
4.1.6 Songbirds
At least 220 species of birds occur in the Rocky Mountains of southeastern BC, and of
those, at least 160 are known or suspected of breeding in the area (Campbell et al.,
1990a; Campbell et al. 1990b; Campbell et al. 1997; Campbell et al. 2001). Bird species
that are typical of valley bottom, riparian, montane, and alpine habitats occur within the
WSA, as well as species that are found in association with urban or agricultural
development. Among these 220 species, the BC Conservation Data Centre (CDC) and
Committee on the Status of Endangered wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) recognize 10
species with provincial (CDC) or federal (COSEWIC) designation as “at risk” (Table 7,
Table 8). The categories used by the COSEWIC and CDC to rank species at risk are
defined as follows (BC Conservation Data Centre 2008; Committee on the Status of
Endangered wildlife in Canada 2008):
Table 7. Species status classes summarized of the British Columbia Conservation Data Centre lists.
British Columbia Conservation Data Centre
Red List Includes any ecological community, and indigenous species and subspecies
that is extirpated, endangered, or threatened in British Columbia. Extirpated
elements no longer exist in the wild in British Columbia, but do occur
elsewhere. Endangered elements are facing imminent extirpation or
extinction. Threatened elements are likely to become endangered if limiting
factors are not reversed.
Blue List Includes any ecological community, and indigenous species and subspecies
considered to be of special concern (formerly vulnerable) in British
Columbia. Elements are of special concern because of characteristics that
make them particularly sensitive to human activities or natural events. Blue-
listed elements are at risk, but are not Extirpated, Endangered or Threatened.
Yellow List includes uncommon, common, declining and increasing species – all species
not included on the Red or Blue lists.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
Extinct (X) A wildlife species that no longer exists.
Extirpated (XT) A wildlife species that no longer exists in the wild in Canada, but exists
elsewhere.
Endangered (E) A wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction.
Threatened (T) A wildlife species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not
reversed.
Special Concern (SC) A wildlife species that may become a threatened or an endangered species
because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats.
Final Report 12
Table 8. Avian species with provincial (CDC) or federal (COSEWIC) status as species at risk
occurring in and around the proposed Mist Mountain Coalbed Gas Project Area.
English Name Scientific Name CDC COSEWIC
American Avocet Recurvirostra americana Red
American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Blue
Band-tailed Pigeon Patagioenas fasciata Blue
Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Blue
Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Blue
Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus Blue
Canyon Wren Catherpes mexicanus Blue
Special
Flammulated Owl Otus flammeolus Blue
Concern
Forster's Tern Sterna forsteri Red
Great Blue Heron, herodias ssp. Ardea herodias herodias Blue
Le Conte's Sparrow Ammodramus leconteii Blue
Special
Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Red
Concern
Special
Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus Blue
Concern
Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi Yellow Threatened
Peregrine Falcon, tundrius ssp. Falco peregrinus tundrius Blue
Sharp-tailed Grouse, Tympanuchus phasianellus
Blue
columbianus ssp. columbianus
Special
Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Blue
Concern
Western Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis Red
Western Screech-Owl, Megascops kennicottii
Red Endangered
macfarlanei ssp. macfarlanei
Williamson’s Sapsucker,
Sphyrapicus thyroideus nataliae Red Endangered
nataliae ssp.
Special
Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis Red
Concern
Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens Red Endangered
Most of the avian-related studies that have occurred in the East Kootenay have not
evaluated population-level trends of migratory songbirds. This makes direct comparisons
of the avian data difficult; however, information from these reports relating avian
diversity or richness by habitat type and ecosystem is reviewed in Section 4.2.6.
Final Report 13
4.2 Review of Wildlife Habitat Information

A number of habitat studies on moose (Poole and Bachman 2006; Poole and Stuart Smith
2004 and 2006; Serrouya and Poole 2001), avian species (Bunnell 2004; Preston et al.
2005; Robertson 2001, 2002, 2004; Wells et al. 2008), furbearers (Apps et al. 2007;
Mowat 2002; Weaver 2001), mountain goat (Poole et al. 2006), bighorn sheep (Kinley
2007) and elk (Poole and Park 2003) have been conducted in the East Kootenay Region.
In addition, Biophysical Ungulate Capability Habitat Mapping and Ungulate Winter
Range Mapping compiled by the BC Ministry of Environment are available for the WSA
and the region. The following review of habitat information for the selected wildlife
indicators summarizes the results documented on studies conducted in the WSA and
within the larger Kootenay Region surrounding the WSA.
4.2.1 Elk
Elk winter habitat use in Region 4 has been identified through specific studies or
population monitoring (Halko and Hebert 1997; Poole and Park 2003; Serrouya and Eon
2000). Studies of habitat use or their distribution have occurred as part of the Teck Coal
Limited operations. Their distribution data were used in the development of the elk
winter habitat model. Elk winter habitat use in the Kootenay Region has been
characterized as low elevation open shrub/riparian foraging habitats close to forested
habitat (young or old stands) that can be used for cover. Young and old forest habitats are
preferred with mid mature and mature stand having low use (Halko and Herbert 1997).
An analysis of radio telemetry and aerial survey data collected between 1986 and 1993 in
the Columbia Valley (Region 4) indicated that elk were using low elevations sites on
gentle slopes (<20%) that were characterized as young and open forest types with
Douglas-fir and Ponderosa pine as the leading tree species, more frequently than other
habitat types (Serrouya and Eon 2000). Further, Serrouya and Eon (2000) reported that
the availability of suitable foraging habitats had a greater influence on winter habitat use
by elk than cover because of low snowfall in their study area.
Poole and Park (2003) analysed 7,700 GPS collar locations from eight female elk in the
Lardeau Valley, West Kootenay Region. In that study, elk were apparently selecting low
elevation habitats on gentle slopes (<16%), open foraging habitats, especially shrub
dominated and riparian habitats, or recently disturbed areas during late winter. In
addition, Poole and Park (2003) reported the use of ecotones as important particularly in
combinations of young and older seral habitats on the landscape, which aligns with the
results of Halko and Herbert (1997).
Road and/or access density has been reported to have a negative influence on elk habitat
use. Thomas et al. (1979) and Lyon (1983) reported a reduction in elk habitat
effectiveness as road density increases in elk winter range. Other concerns related to elk
management, but also related to bighorn sheep, are the overgrazing of grasslands and
competition with domestic livestock for forage (Wilson and Morley 2005). Certain
agriculture and ranching activities (e.g., fencing of croplands) have contributed to a
reduction or severing of wildlife movement corridors and access to important winter
habitats.
Final Report 14
4.2.2 Moose
From 2001 – 2003, Poole and Stuart-Smith (2004; 2006) deployed 24 GPS collars on
adult female moose to study winter habitat use by adult female moose in the East
Kootenays. They selected three study areas to include the range of biophysical features
and BEC zones used by moose in the Kootenay Region (the Flathead Valley, the Upper
Elk Valley, and the lower Spillimacheen Valley) in the East Kootenay Region. The upper
portion of the Flathead Valley study area was located in the WSA but not the Project
Area.
Winter habitat use by moose in the East Kootenay mirrors that of elk, where habitats in
higher elevations are used during early winter and as snow depth increases, moose move
to lower elevations (Poole and Stuart-Smith 2004; 2006). Site aspect or slope did not
appear to influence winter habitat selection, but elevation did, with lower elevations used
more frequently than higher ones. Open foraging habitats including recently logged areas
(10–30 years of age), riparian zones, and shrub habitats were selected by moose in late
winter. Poole and Stuart-Smith (2004; 2006) report that forage abundance had the
greatest influence in habitat selection for moose in late winter. The authors recommend
that, for management purposes, moose winter range areas should encompass the full
range of elevations used during winter, allow for movement to late winter lower elevation
habitats, and habitat management strategies should include creating or maintaining open
foraging habitats within a matrix of cover habitats particularly for late winter range.
4.2.3 Mountain Goat

Poole et al. (2006) conducted a winter habitat study on mountain goats in two study
areas, the St. Mary area, in the southern Purcell Mountains and White River area in the
Rocky Mountains. Both study areas are outside (and over 50 km north and west) of the
WSA. The two study areas were selected due to differences in snow depth, moisture of
the snow, and availability of wind swept ridges. Fifteen mountain goats were collared
with GPS collars from January 2004 to August 2005.
The average winter home range size did not differ significantly between study areas or
years, and Poole et al. (2006) reported an average winter home range sizes for females of
2.6 ± 0.80 km2 (n = 10) and 1.8 ± 0.37 km2 for males ( n = 18). However, home range
size and movement patterns during winter changed for individuals of both sexes over the
two winters due to varying snow levels. During the winter of 2005, collared females had
winter home ranges sizes of 4.8 km2 (n = 9) and males had winter home ranges sizes of
6.2 km2 (n = 16). It is important to note that even with fluctuating snow levels, the size of
the winter ranges in both years (for both sexes) are small and indicate a high level of site
fidelity.
Individual mountain goats have been found to occupy small and habitat-specific winter
home ranges, and to have a high level of fidelity to home range areas across winters
(Keim 2004; Poole et al. 2006; Taylor 2006;). Poole et al. (2006) reported that broad-
scale mountain goat habitat use was comprised of habitats characterized as close to
rugged habitats with adequate escape terrain on warm aspect slopes, and solar radiation.
Differences between the two study areas relate to the snow depth and availability of wind
swept ridges. Mountain goats in the Purcell Mountains tended to avoid open alpine
Final Report 15
habitats, while goats in the Rocky Mountains used these habitats. The authors report at a
fine scale, similar winter habitat selection occurred where warm, rugged habitats, at
upper elevations were selected. Forest stands were not selected in either study area.
The winter habitat selection results reported by Poole et al. (2007) are similar to other
studies in British Columbia where the distance to escape terrain and warm aspects are the
key habitat features (Keim and Lele 2006; Keim and Lele 2007; MacLean et al. 2006;
Pollard and Keim 2006). While mountain goat studies in the study area occurred outside
the Project Area and WSA, there is known summer range in the Foisey Creek area;
however no mountain goats were observed in the area during the winter survey (Teske
pers. comm.).
4.2.4 Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep occur in the East Kootenay Region and in the WSA;
however, sheep ranges in the wildlife study are considered to have relatively low habitat
quality and low abundance compared to other known sheep ranges in the East Kootenay
Region (Demarchi et al. 2000). During the 2001 and 2002 winter census surveys, the
WSA was not surveyed due to its low habitat capability and historic knowledge of low
sheep numbers or absence of sheep in most of the study area. The Elk Valley and Bull
River sheep populations, which are adjacent to the WSA, are considered stable (Teske
and Forbes 2002).
Bighorn sheep have high fidelity to seasonal ranges with ewes generally having higher
fidelity than males (Demarchi et al. 2000). Seasonal home range size varies with winter
being the smallest for sheep, with the exception of lambing range for ewes, which is
usually a smaller area within the winter home range. During winter, Rocky Mountain
bighorn sheep select habitats with shallow snow depths and access to escape terrain
(Demarchi et al. 2000). Sheep also use varying strategies to avoid snow in the East
Kootenay Region. Sheep in the Elk Valley have been documented to summer and winter
at high elevations (TAESC 1982; Demarchi 1986). Sheep were observed selecting
windswept alpine and sub alpine ridges or exposed southerly grassland slopes. Grasslands
and open young seral habitats are used for foraging.
Bighorn sheep in the East Kootenay Trench (Columbia River Valley) have been
documented to use low elevation southerly habitats in dry ecosystems adjacent to escape
terrain or talus slopes (Demarchi 1986). Mineral licks are important site specific features
for sheep in both areas. Similar to sheep in the Elk Valley, grasslands and young seral
habitats contain important habitat attributes used for foraging.
General habitat criteria for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, summarized by Demarchi et
al. (2000) include:
 escape terrain areas with slope >27° and <85°;
 escape terrain areas within 300 m of escape terrain and areas ≤1000 m wide
that are bound on ≥2 sides by escape terrain;
 vegetation density areas must have visibility >55%;
Final Report 16
 natural barriers areas that bighorn sheep cannot access are excluded (e.g.,
rivers >200 ft3/s, areas with visibility <30% that are 100 m wide, cliffs with
>85° slope);
 human use areas are excluded;
 man-made barriers are excluded (e.g., major highways, wildlife-proof
fencing, aqueducts, major canals); and
 domestic livestock areas within 16 km of domestic sheep and domestic goats
are excluded.
Kinley (2007) described regional habitat selection for sheep in the East Kootenay Trench,
which is adjacent to the western boundary of the WSA (i.e., west of Fernie). Kinley
reported winter habitat use of open grasslands/young seral habitats on warm aspects.
These habitats provide forage and high visibility for sheep to detect predators. In
addition, the habitats were at low elevations and in proximity to escape terrain. Kinley
(2007) indicated that the human activities can have potentially adverse influences on
important winter sheep habitats in the trench. Human influences affecting sheep include
fire suppression and the encroachment of conifers into sheep winter range (Teske and
Forbes 2002). Other concerns related to sheep management are the overgrazing of
grasslands and competition with domestic livestock for forage (Wilson and Morley
2005).
4.2.5 Furbearers
There have been furbearer studies conducted in the East Kootenay Region, but only been
recent work by Apps et al. (2007) has occurred in the WSA. Apps et al. (2007) developed
habitat models for several carnivore species, verified two of the models (grizzly bear and
lynx) using DNA hair analysis, and have recommended core habitat areas for carnivores
with connectivity corridors in relation to the major highway corridor. The DNA hair
analysis was conducted in the WSA with a few sampling areas in the Project Area.
Other furbearer studies, models, or literature reviews in the region have occurred for
marten, lynx, bobcat, weasel, wolf, and wolverine in the East Kootenay Region (Mowat
2002; Mowat and Paetkau 2002; Weaver 2001; this study).
As part of a study in the Selkirk and Purcell Mountains measuring carnivore distribution,
Mowat (2002) reported that marten preferred coniferous stands over deciduous stands
and that marten appeared more abundant in wetter coniferous stands. Additionally,
marten appeared to have a stronger relationship to forest structure than to ecosystem
classification at a fine scale. At a broad scale, ecosystem type and forest stand type had
slightly better results.
Apps et al. (2007) described the habitat relationships for various forest carnivores in the
East Kootenays. Lynx habitat is closely associated to the habitat used by its main prey,
the snowshoe hare (Lepus americanius). Snowshoe hare habitat is comprised of older
coniferous or mixedwood forests with dense understory or regenerating conifer stands
between 10 and 50 years of age. In the East Kootenay, bobcats are at their northern range
limit, and where they occur, use low elevation dry forested ecosystems are during winter.
Final Report 17
In particular, the IDF and MS biogeoclimatic zones are preferred over wetter colder BEC
zones such as the ESSF. Apps et al. (2007) reported that wolverine were expected to
occur at low densities, with large home ranges and where they do occur, would be
associated with cooler montane to subalpine forested ecosystems.
4.2.6 Songbirds
There have been a number of songbird and avian-focused projects completed in the East
Kootenay Region, most of which were related to the relationships between migratory
songbirds and land management strategies (Bunnell 2004; Davis et al. 2005; Preston et
al. 2005; Wells et al. 2004;Wells et al. 2008). Tembec Inc. has been studying breeding
birds, red and blue listed species, and, identifying coarse-scale habitat relationships, and
modeling habitat relationships of avian species. However, the work has occurred north of
the WSA in a different ecoprovince.
Songbird-habitat associations were described at a broad (i.e., BEC zone) and fine scale
(i.e., stand-level) by Preston et al. (2005) for the Invermere Timber Supply Area (TSA).
In that study, Preston et al. reported that songbirds were more abundant in habitats with
greater hardwood representation, and stands with as little as 5% hardwood representation
were preferred over stands with no hardwood component. In general, patterns of species
abundance, both within and among BEC zones, were stronger when grouped by stand
characteristics (e.g. tree size, canopy cover, and number of vertical layers). Tree size was
the predominant factor that explained species presence and mean abundance. Canopy
cover was also an important factor, whereas the number of vertical layers appeared to
have little effect (Preston et al. 2005).
Wells et al. (2008) developed coarse scale habitat models for two focal species (Brown
Creeper and Red-naped Sapsucker) in the Invermere TSA, which is situated directly
north of the WSA. They evaluated their models against current land management, and for
one species (Brown Creeper), they evaluated long run habitat trends under management
and natural historic range of variability assumptions.
5 WILDLIFE FIELD SURVEYS

5.1 PURPOSE
As part of the baseline assessment, LGL conducted the following wildlife field surveys in
the WSA in 2008:
1. Winter Aerial Reconnaissance Survey
2. Winter Ground Transects
3. Winter Mountain Goat Aerial Survey
4. Songbird Point-count Survey
The purpose of these surveys was to collect information on the presence of ungulates and
furbearers during late winter and on the distribution and occurrence of avian species
during spring within the range of habitats in the WSA. In addition, a late-winter aerial
Final Report 18
survey was completed to determine mountain goat distribution in the Mist Mountain
WSA. Detailed in the following sections are the methods and results of each field survey.
Field surveys were done to British Columbia Resource Information Standards Committee
(RISC) standards (see http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/risc), and the habitat models were tested
for statistical significance and evaluated for fit with species location data.
5.2 METHODS
5.2.1 Aerial Reconnaissance Survey Methods

Within the WSA, two aerial reconnaissance flights were conducted on February 16 and
17, 2008 using RISC standards (RISC 2002). The search effort focused on valley-bottom
areas and south-facing slopes to locate ungulates and their sign. An A-Star B3 helicopter
was used for the survey with three survey observers and a pilot present in the helicopter.
The primary observer/navigator sat in the left-front seat, and the two observers sat in the
back seats.
Observers recorded all sightings regardless of who initially made each sighting. Sightings
consisted of the time (hh:mm:ss) of each observation, gps location, type of sign, and
general comments. Data were entered into a digital database and included as an Excel file
with this report (Appendix 1).
5.2.2 Winter Ground Transect Methods

For the winter wildlife ground surveys, two crews of two or three people (the third person
being an avalanche technician), walked transects in and adjacent to the WSA during the
period of 15-25 February 2008. Tracking conditions were excellent during the study.
With the exception of 15 February when sites were accessed by truck, all access to and
from transect starting points and pick-up-points was by helicopter. Following a daily
safety briefing during which all aspects of project safety were discussed (and particularly
avalanches), transects were approximated on a 1:50,000 map. Drop-off and pick-up
points were identified in the field. The crews worked from upper to lower elevations
along each transect. General transect locations were selected in order to satisfy sampling
requirements (i.e., coverage of all BEC subzones) and safety considerations.
Each crew walked the transect on snowshoes. A hand-held GPS recorded positions every
5-10 seconds. Transect routes were chosen while traversing the terrain to ensure safe
travel and to ensure that representative habitat types were sampled. Observers recorded
all tracks within ~5 m of the traveled transect onto paper dataforms, noting observations
to the nearest taxonomic unit. Data on a number of abiotic factors such as snow depth,
snow cover, days since snow, temperature, wind speed, slope, and aspect were also
collected. Thirty-five ground transects, totalling 142 km were surveyed (Map 4). No
appreciable snow accumulations occurred after 15 February. By the time the study ended
on February 25, 2008, mild weather and a lack of new snow meant that tracking
conditions had begun to deteriorate.
Data were entered into a digital database and assigned a UTM coordinate according to the
nearest timestamp from the GPS associated with each transect. Large breaks (e.g., >5
min) in GPS coverage were later interpolated using GIS software (Appendix 1).
Final Report 19
The environmental conditions of the WSA had an influence on how the ground survey
was deployed. High snow loads and varying winter weather temperatures produced
heightened avalanche hazard potential during the survey period. The selection of ground
transect survey locations occurred daily and required input from avalanche safety experts.
For additional safety, avalanche safety experts accompanied the field crews to assess the
on-the-ground risk of avalanches prior to commencing the transect.
5.2.3 Mountain Goat Aerial Survey Methods

An aerial survey of wintering mountain goats in and near the Mist Mountain Project Area
using RISC standards (RISC 2002) was conducted on February 17, 2008. An A-Star B3
helicopter was used for the survey with three survey observers and a pilot present in the
helicopter. The primary observer/navigator sat in the left-front seat, and the two observers
sat in the back seats. Transect were navigated such that the primary observer was on the
up-slope side of ground terrain, as feasible. The height above ground level (AGL) and the
groundspeed varied with topography, but generally, the helicopter was ~100 m from the
ground-surface and groundspeed was ~60-80 km/h. Survey flights continued until the
primary observer was satisfied that all potential mountain goat habitat had been surveyed.
Flight intensity varied by location and environmental conditions (e.g. wind and
visibility), with multiple (2 to 3) flight passes required at some sites.
A hand-held GPS unit (Garmin eTrex) logged the time and position of the helicopter
every 3 seconds. Sightings made by observers were recorded using a digital voice
recorder or on paper. Observers recorded all sightings regardless of who initially made
each sighting. Sightings consisted of the time (hh:mm:ss) of each observation when the
helicopter was over or within ~100 m of the animal (thereby allowing the observations to
be linked to the GPS position data). Goat tracks and other incidental wildlife observations
were also noted (Appendix 1).
5.2.4 Songbird Point-Count Methods

Time-constrained, fixed-radius point-count surveys were used to measure the number and
diversity of birds in the WSA. Surveys were conducted between June 9 and 22, 2008. The
time of the surveys (mid-June) was chosen to maximize the detectability of birds within
the survey area. By mid-June, all locally breeding birds are on territory and are highly
vocal, enabling surveyors to accurately document the number and diversity of breeding
birds.
The point-count survey method involved standing at a fixed point along an accessible
road and documenting all birds seen and heard within 75 m of the observer during a
6-minute count period. Individual point-counts were placed at ~400 m apart to eliminate
multiple detections of a single bird from more than one count point. The species of bird
as well as the distance (from the observer) and known or presumed habitat of each
detection were recorded (Table 9). Additional data recorded included the sex and age
class of the bird (when known) and the type of detection (call, song, or visual), and notes
were made to differentiate fly-over birds from the rest of the detections. Furthermore,
because the detectability of different bird species varies depending on the amount of time
devoted to each survey (Bibby et al. 2000), the portion of the 6-minute count period in
which each individual was detected was recorded (0-3 minutes, 3-5 minutes, 5-6
Final Report 20
minutes). General weather conditions (e.g., wind, precipitation, and temperature) were
also recorded.
Table 9. Habitat codes used to describe the known or presumed habitat for each songbird detection.
Habitat Code Description Habitat Code Description
CC Clear Cut < 20 yrs SGF Second Growth Forest
CON Mature Coniferous SGM Second Growth Mixed
DEC Mature Deciduous RIP Riparian
MMX Mature Mixed Forest WET Wetland
ALP Alpine RL River / Lake
BUR Burn GRA Grassland
RD Road / Trail DIS Disturbed
OTH Other
Sampling was stratified among 9 BEC subzones with subzones having a greater
proportion of area in the WSA receiving more sampling effort. The maximum number of
plots per BEC zone was 40 and the minimum was 10; the target minimum number of
total point-counts was 220 (Table 10). The IMAun was not sampled because of its
relatively small size compared to the other BEC subzones. Each point-count station was
visited once in 2008.
Table 10. BEC subzone, proportion of total area, and target minimum number of songbird point-
count stations per BEC subzone.
BEC Subzone Proportion of WSA Point-counts
ESSFdk 1 0.322 40
ESSFdkp 0.041 20
ESSFdkw 0.140 30
ESSFwm 0.127 30
ESSFwmp 0.003 10
ESSFwmw 0.063 20
ICHmk 1 0.162 30
IDFun 0.006 10
IMAun 0.005 0
MSdk 0.136 30
Total 220
5.3 Field Survey Results
5.3.1 Aerial Reconnaissance Survey Results

On February 16, 2008, a reconnaissance survey over most of the WSA occurred, focusing
on valley-bottom areas and south-facing slopes to look for ungulates and their sign.
Flying conditions were excellent. There was a notable lack of sightings and signs where
Poole et al. (2008) had documented moose earlier in the winter (Lodgepole Creek). Most
moose tracks were found along the riparian zones of creeks. Moose and elk sign was
common in the Michel Valley with abundant elk foraging sign (cratering) in the gas
pipeline right-of-way where it appeared that heat from the pipeline reduced snow depths.
Deer were also observed in this area, and in particular along the railroad tracks, where it
was anticipated that they could access spilled grain to forage on. Snowmobile activity
Final Report 21
was evident in most major drainages, a few carnivore tracks were observed throughout
the area, and some bighorn sheep, elk, and deer were observed on the north side of
Highway 3 (Map 5).
After a focussed mountain goat survey on 17 February, a reconnaissance flight occurred
down the Lodgepole and Wigwam valleys to the Elk Valley. Flying conditions were
excellent. Ungulate sign (moose, deer, and elk) were common in the lower Lodgepole
and Wigwam valleys. The abundance of moose and moose sign suggests that the moose
counted by Poole et al. (2008) in the mid Lodgepole had migrated down the valley. Many
mule deer and bighorn sheep were observed (but not accurately counted) on the Mt.
Broadwood property. The difference in snowpack between the mid Lodgepole and Mt.
Broadwood area was considerable, with some bare ground on the south/west slopes of the
latter. Several elk and moose were observed in the Elk Valley during the return flight
north to Fernie. Incidental observations during the period of 15-17 February were tallied
into a separate database (Appendix 1).
5.3.2 Winter Ground Transect Results

Snowshoe hare, red squirrel, marten, weasel sp., moose, and coyote were the most
abundant wildlife species recorded along all ground transects, comprising a combined
total of 84% of all records (Figure 2). The ESSF dk1, MS dk, and ICH dk1 subzones had
the highest frequencies of sign observed (581, 548, and 481 respectively) during the
ground surveys. In addition, tracks were the dominant sign observed. All winter ground
transect survey results can be found in Appendix 1.
Overall, 135 km of transects were surveyed with the greatest distances surveyed in the
ESSF dk 1 (34.8 km), ICH mk 1(31.0 km), and MS dk (29.3 km) (Table 11). Differences
between species distribution among BEC subzones, were analyzed by grouping animal
species into three categories and then dividing the total sample of observations by the
kilometres of transects sampled for each species group within each BEC subzone.
Species were grouped by ungulates, furbearers, and small animals. Furbearers included
small furbearers such as ermine, and small animals included both birds and small
mammals such as mouse species or resident passerines. The encounter rate is defined as
the total frequency of encounters divided by the sum of transect distance (km) by BEC
Subzone (Table 11).
Generally, ungulates were found in lower elevation, drier ecosystems than furbearers and
small animals (Table 11; Figure 3). Furbearers and prey species were found at higher
elevations in Engelmann Spruce Subalpine Fir ecosystems, with the highest encounter
rate in the Wet Mild Woodland BEC Subzone (Table 11; Figure 4). The Dry Cool
Woodland subzone had the next highest encounter rate for furbearers and the it appears
there was no real differences between the other BEC Zones except the Interior Douglas
Fir Zone with the lowest encounter rate for furbearers. Small animals had similar rates
between BEC zones with the ESSF wmw, wm, and dk1 subzones having slightly higher
rates than other subzones (Table 11; Figure 5). There are no apparent differences between
the other subzones in the WSA.
Final Report 22
Deer sp., 1%
Gray Wolf, 1%
Wolverine, 1%
Lynx, 2%
Grouse sp., 2%
Rocky Mountain Elk, Other, 4%
3%
Coyote, 6%
Snowshoe Hare, 27%

Moose, 8%
Marten, 11%
Weasal, 13% Red Squirrel, 21%
Figure 2. Percentage breakdown of 2382 wildlife observations collected along 35 transects (includes
39 records for one transect with no GPS data). The numbers of animals associated with
the track records are not indicated. Mist Mountain Wildlife Study Area, February 2008.
Table 11. The encounter rate of wildlife observations summarized for each BEC Subzone in the study
area.
Species Group ESSF dk 1 ESSF dkp ESSF dkw ESSF wm ESSF wmw ICH mk 1 IDF un MS dk
Ungulate Encounters (n) 8 0 0 1 0 68 6 196
Ungulate Encounter Rate (/km) 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 2.19 6.10 6.68
Furbearer Encounters (n) 173 11 149 79 120 149 1 126
Furbearer Encounter Rate (/km) 4.96 6.68 11.01 5.22 15.32 4.80 1.02 4.30
Small Animal Encounters (n) 395 8 89 165 93 258 6 226
Small Animals Encounter Rate (/km) 11.33 4.86 6.58 10.91 11.88 8.30 6.10 7.71
Kilometres of transects 34.87 1.65 13.53 15.12 7.83 31.07 0.98 29.33
Final Report 23
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
Encounter Rate (encounters/km)
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
ESSFdk 1 ESSFdkp ESSFdkw ESSFwm ESSFwmw ICH mk 1 IDF un MS dk
BEC Subzone
Figure 3. Encounter rate of ungulates summarized by BEC Subzone in the Wildlife Study Area.
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
BEC Subzone
Figure 4. Encounter rate of furbearers summarized by BEC Subzone in the Wildlife Study Area.
Final Report 24
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
BEC Subzone
Figure 5. Encounter rate of small animals summarized by BEC Subzone in the Wildlife Study Area.
The wildlife winter ground survey results indicate ungulate sign was more frequently
encountered at higher levels in the IDF and MS zones, which are ecosystems that would
have lower snow depths in the WSA. This is consistent with the findings of Poole and
Stuart-Smith (2006) where moose selected for low elevation habitats in late winter. In
addition, the moose observations from the January 2008 moose survey were at higher
elevations than moose observed during the February 2008 wildlife surveys, suggesting
that moose moved to lower elevations in late January/early February.
Furbearers were found throughout all ecosystems in the WSA with a higher encounter
rate occurring in the woodland ecosystems (BEC subzones). This is consistent with
Mowat (2002) who observed furbearers in habitats comprised of tall coniferous stands
with increased stand structure such as blowdown, coarse wood debris, or snags.
5.3.3 Mountain Goat Aerial Survey Results

Conditions on 17 February were optimal for surveying Mountain Goats – clear skies and
a fresh layer of snow (~20 cm) that had fallen the night of 15 February. Daytime
temperatures ranged from -5°C at alpine elevations up to 0°C at lower elevations. Snow
coverage was 100% except for a few windswept ridges and very steep slopes, which were
bare. A portion of the Continental Divide (Flathead Range including Mt. Ptolemy, Mt.
McGladrey, Mt. Pengelly, Mt. Darrah, Centre Mtn., and Mt. Borsato) and selected high-
elevation ridges in the WSA were surveyed. In total 39 goats in 17 groups (6 juveniles,
18 adults, and 15 unclassified) were observed in the alpine and krummholz habitats of the
Continental Divide. Group sizes ranged from 1 to 10 (mean = 2.3). No goats or goat
tracks were seen on the Michel, Limestone, Foisey, and Corrigan Ridges. Where tracks or
goats were seen, goats were taking advantage of the clear, mild weather and most showed
signs of moving considerable distances and upslope. It is thought the crusting of snow
Final Report 25
made travel easier for mountain goats. When tracks were observed, they were followed in
an attempt to locate the goats and most tracks lead to goats. Places such as Limestone
Ridge, Michel Ridge, Mt. Corrigan, Foisey Ridge, and Flathead Ridge do not have
suitable goat habitat (Map 6).
Overall, more observations of wildlife occurred in the ESSF dkp and ESSF dkw than
other BEC subzones (Table 12). This finding is similar for mountain goats with the ESSF
dkp having the highest number of observations.
Mountain goats and tracks were located primarily between 1800–2300 m asl, on slopes
25-55 degrees steep with southerly aspects (Appendix 1).
Of the incidental wildlife sightings, the observations of an active wolverine den in a patch
of subalpine forest on the Divide was notable.
It is important to note that all the mountain goat observations were located on the
periphery of WSA, and no observations were found in the Project Area. This is similar to
the distribution of bighorn sheep documented during the 2008 bighorn sheep survey. The
results of the goat and sheep surveys indicate that there are areas with suitable habitats in
and adjacent to the WSA that support sheep and goat populations.
Table 12. The distribution of wildlife observations by BEC subzone during a mountain goat aerial
survey in the Mist Mountain Wildlife Study Area.
Species ESSF dk 1 ESSF dkp ESSF dkw ESSF wm ESSF wmw IMA un MS dk Total
Blue Grouse 6 6
Moose Tracks 1 1
Mountain Goat Observations (groups) 4 (1) 17 (10) 11 (2) 7 (4) 39 (17)
Mountain Goat Tracks 2 9 11 1 23
Mustelid Tracks 1 1
Snowshoe Hare Tracks 1 3 2 5 11
Unknown Tracks 1 1
Wolverine Tracks 1 1 2
Total 8 27 26 2 12 8 1 84
5.3.4 Songbird Point-count Survey Results

Weather conditions during the first half of June were cool and wet, particularly during the
second week of the month during the initial days of surveying. The average monthly
temperature for June at the Sparwood weather station is 12.6°C (Environment Canada
Weather Office 2008 - www.weatheroffice.com ), but mean daily temperature did not
exceed or even meet this average during the entire first two weeks of the month. The
lowest mean daily temperatures (5.8–7.0°C) corresponded with the first three days of
surveying. Similarly, the greatest rainfall accumulations (as much as 8 mm per day)
occurred during the second week of the month, particularly during the first three days of
surveying (daily accumulations of 3.6–8 mm during period of 8 June to 10 June). These
adverse weather conditions, particularly precipitation, likely had some effect on the
activity levels of birds and, subsequently, their detectability. Weather conditions
Final Report 26
improved considerably after 15 June, with both an increase in temperature and near
elimination of precipitation events. Because of these improvements, the monthly rainfall
accumulation for June 2008 (37.2 mm) was much lower than the historical average
precipitation for that month (62.8 mm) (Environment Canada Weather Office 2008).
A total of 259 six-minute point-counts were completed within the WSA during the 2008
field season (Map 7). The number of point-counts completed in each subzone was loosely
based on the area of the subzone (Table 13), but was more influenced by road access at
the time of the survey. Of the uppermost subzones that were sampled, the ESSFdkw and
ESSFwmw received very little coverage due to limited accessibility and persistent snow
cover. The ESSFwmp was not accessible at all.
Table 13. Area of BEC subzones within the study area, the number of point-counts per subzone, and
the number of point-counts per 1000 ha (to correct for the variable size of each subzone).
BEC Total Area Proportion of Total No. of Point- No. of Point-counts per
subzone (ha) Area counts 1000 ha
IDFun 794.25 0.6 11 13.8
ICHmk1 21,230.13 16.2 96 4.5
MSdk 17,801.16 13.5 53 3.0
ESSFwm 16,620.17 12.6 44 2.6
ESSFwmw 8,203.81 6.2 1 0.1
ESSFwmp 394.35 0.3 0 0
ESSFdk1 42,106.58 32.0 49 1.2
ESSFdkw 18,366.30 14.0 5 0.3
ESSFdkp* 5,300.63 4.0 0 0
Total 130,817.38 259 2.0
*The ESSFdkp was not accessible during field visits.
A total of 73 species of birds from the 259 point-count stations was documented. The
number of species recorded from each subzone was variable (Table 14) and was largely
related to the ecological complexity of the subzones. For example, the ICHmk1 and
MSdk, with their greatest number of habitat types and the greatest number of species
were detected (60 and 48, respectively). Conversely, the subzones within the ESSF BEC
zone, which consist largely of rather unproductive and homogeneous coniferous forests,
produced far fewer bird species. Several of the subzones did not receive adequate survey
coverage; IDFun, ESSFwmw, ESSFdkw. In the IDFun a wide range of habitat types
occur and hence a wide range of song bird species would be expected. In the ESSFwmw
and ESSFdkw a low range of habitat types occur and the expected songbird diversity to
be depauperate in these subzones.
Final Report 27
Table 14. Number of bird species detected in each biogeoclimatic subzone and habitat type sampled,
including the average number of species detected per point-count (PC). An asterisk (*)
denotes subzones that did not receive adequate coverage and therefore the averages presented
are not considered accurate.
Total species (detections) per Habitat Type*
BGC Species Detections PC Species / PC SGM SGC SGD SH RIP CC DIS WET RL OTH Total1
IDFun 30 110 11 2.7* 24 (72) 13 (16) . . 6 (9) . 2 (2) . 2 (2) 4 (5) 30 (106)
ICHmk1 60 922 96 1.6 39 (458) 25 (80) 19 (78) 15 (67) 13 (41) 19 (37) 9 (28) 4 (4) 1 (1) 20 (54) 60 (848)
MSdk 48 383 53 1.1 26 (120) 24 (143) 6 (10) 4 (5) 12 (17) 3 (7) 8 (28) 3 (4) . 11 (24) 48 (358)
ESSFwm 28 252 44 0.6 11 (18) 24 (196) . . 2 (2) 7 (12) 6 (6) . . 3 (7) 28 (241)
ESSFwmw 13 28 1 13.0* . 6 (7) 10 (18) . . . 1 (1) . . 13 (26)

ESSFdk1 35 357 49 0.7 14 (39) 26 (231) . 9 (25) 4 (7) 10 (23) 5 (7) . . 6 (7) 35 (339)
ESSFdkw 14 33 5 2.8* . 6 (9) 10 (19) . . . . . . 1 (2) 13 (30)
1
The total detections per habitat type differs from the total detections because the habitat type in which a given
observation was made was not always recorded.
Habitat preferences and distribution for the 16 most commonly encountered songbird
species documented during spring 2008 bird surveys of the Mist Mountain Project Area
can be found in
Appendix 3. The following sections describe species diversity and occurrence for each of
the 7 biogeoclimatic zones sampled in 2008 (BC Forest Service 2008).
5.3.4.1 IDFun
This small subzone contains a notable amount of habitat heterogeneity, including riparian
and riverine habitats, clearcuts, second-growth coniferous forests, mixed woodlands,
deciduous groves, and grasslands. The bird diversity is therefore expectedly high, with
110 detections of 30 species from only 11 point-counts (Table 15). Warbling Vireo and
Yellow-rumped Warbler were the most abundant species recorded in this subzone, with
11 and 10 detections, respectively. Other characteristic species of this subzone included
Hammond’s Flycatcher, Ruby-crowned Kinglet, American Robin, Townsend’s Warbler,
MacGillivray’s Warbler, Chipping Sparrow, Dark-eyed Junco, Brown-headed Cowbird,
and Pine Siskin.
Yellow-rumped Warbler, American Robin, Brown-headed Cowbird, MacGillivray’s
Warbler, Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Chipping Sparrow, and Dark-eyed Junco were found to
be more abundant in the IDFun than in any other subzone surveyed, although the
relatively small number of point-counts completed in this subzone likely results in
inflated detection rates for most species. No species were detected in the IDFun subzone
that were not detected in any other subzones during this survey, although Spotted
Sandpiper was noted from only one other subzone (ICHmk1). Riparian and riverine
habitats were poorly represented in the IDFun ad as such, species such as Spotted
Sandpiper, American Dipper, Northern Waterthrush, and Black-headed Grosbeak were
detected infrequently. These species are undoubtedly more abundant than the limited
records suggest.
Final Report 28
Table 15. Bird species and number of detections in the IDFun subzone. PC = Point-count.
Species No. No. per PC Species No. No. per PC
Warbling Vireo 11 1.00 Cassin’s Vireo 2 0.18
Yellow-rumped 10 0.91 Mountain Chickadee 2 0.18
Warbler
American Robin 8 0.73 Orange-crowned Warbler 2 0.18
Brown-headed 8 0.73 Western Tanager 2 0.18
Cowbird
MacGillivray’s 8 0.73 American Crow 1 0.09
Warbler
Dark-eyed Junco 7 0.64 American Dipper 1 0.09
Ruby-crowned 6 0.55 Black-capped Chickadee 1 0.09
Kinglet
Chipping Sparrow 5 0.45 Cedar Waxwing 1 0.09
Hammond’s 5 0.45 Dusky Flycatcher 1 0.09
Flycatcher
Pine Siskin 5 0.45 Gray Jay 1 0.09
Townsend’s Warbler 5 0.45 Lincoln’s Sparrow 1 0.09
Northern Waterthrush 4 0.36 Red-naped Sapsucker 1 0.09
Northern Flicker 3 0.27 Song Sparrow 1 0.09
Red-breasted 3 0.27 Spotted Sandpiper 1 0.09
Nuthatch
Swainson’s Thrush 3 0.27 Varied Thrush 1 0.09
The vast majority of detections of birds in the IDFun subzone were in second-growth
mixed forests (Table 14; Appendix 4; Figure A4-1). The high number of detections in
this habitat type reflected both the natural biodiversity of mixed forests as well as the
relatively greater extent of this habitat type in this BEC subzone. Other habitat types,
such as second-growth coniferous forests, riparian woods, and riverine habitats were
found to be more limited within this subzone and supported fewer birds. As well, many
“riparian” habitats have the characteristics of mature mixed forests and were classified as
such during the surveys, resulting in a lower number of detections assigned to the
“riparian” category. Nonetheless, it is clear from the data that mature mixed forests
support the greatest number and diversity of species within the IDFun subzone.
5.3.4.2 ICHmk1
The greatest diversity of songbird species and the largest number of detections occurred
in the ICHmk1, which is likely due to greater habitat heterogeneity and complexity,
lower elevation, and large areal extent relative to the other subzones. Habitats present
included extensive riparian and riverine habitats, agricultural and urban development, and
second-growth mixed and deciduous forests. Ninety-six point-counts were completed in
this subzone, which was substantially higher than in any of the other six subzones
sampled. A total of 922 detections of 60 species were documented at these point-counts,
with Warbling Vireo topping the list as the most abundant and widespread species (Table
16). Other common and characteristic species included Swainson’s Thrush, Hammond’s
Flycatcher, MacGillivray’s Warbler, Pine Siskin, and American Robin. The abundance of
Final Report 29
four species (Hammond’s Flycatcher, Pine Siskin, Swainson’s Thrush, and Warbling
Vireo) was higher in this subzone than in any other subzone, while 12 species (American
Redstart, Bank Swallow, Gray Catbird, Black-headed Grosbeak, Common Yellowthroat,
Green-winged Teal, Mallard, Lazuli Bunting, Western Wood-Pewee, Least Flycatcher,
Red-eyed Vireo, and Red-winged Blackbird) were unique to the ICHmk1 and were not
recorded in other subzones.
Table 16. Bird species and number of detections in the ICHmk1 subzone.
Warbling Vireo 116 1.21 Black-capped Chickadee 6 0.06
Swainson’s Thrush 70 0.73 Common Raven 6 0.06
Hammond’s Flycatcher 68 0.71 Rufous Hummingbird 5 0.05
MacGillivray’s Warbler 66 0.69 Hairy Woodpecker 4 0.04
Pine Siskin 62 0.65 Lincoln’s Sparrow 4 0.04
American Robin 58 0.60 Violet-green Swallow 4 0.04
Yellow-rumped Warbler 40 0.42 Red-eyed Vireo 3 0.03
American Redstart 29 0.30 Least Flycatcher 3 0.03
Ruby-crowned Kinglet 29 0.30 Black-headed Grosbeak 3 0.03
Northern Waterthrush 27 0.28 Mountain Chickadee 3 0.03
Dark-eyed Junco 25 0.26 Cassin’s Finch 2 0.02
Golden-crowned Kinglet 25 0.26 Common Yellowthroat 2 0.02
Townsend’s Warbler 22 0.23 Townsend’s Solitaire 2 0.02
Cedar Waxwing 21 0.22 American Dipper 2 0.02
Wilson’s Warbler 19 0.20 Northern Flicker 2 0.02
Chipping Sparrow 19 0.20 Red-naped Sapsucker 2 0.02
Dusky Flycatcher 17 0.18 Tree Swallow 2 0.02
Yellow Warbler 16 0.17 Western Wood-Pewee 1 0.01
Brown-headed Cowbird 15 0.16 Steller’s Jay 1 0.01
Willow Flycatcher 13 0.14 Spotted Sandpiper 1 0.01
Orange-crowned Warbler 13 0.14 Red-winged Blackbird 1 0.01
Red-breasted Nuthatch 13 0.14 Red-tailed Hawk 1 0.01
Varied Thrush 12 0.13 Olive-sided Flycatcher 1 0.01
Song Sparrow 12 0.13 Mallard 1 0.01
Winter Wren 10 0.10 Lazuli Bunting 1 0.01
Cassin’s Vireo 9 0.09 Green-winged Teal 1 0.01
Western Tanager 9 0.09 Gray Catbird 1 0.01
American Crow 8 0.08 Fox Sparrow 1 0.01
Ruffed Grouse 6 0.06 Bank Swallow 1 0.01
Calliope Hummingbird 6 0.06 Brown Creeper 1 0.01
Second-growth mixed forests dominate the landscape within the ICHmk1 and, as
expected, the vast majority of bird detections (55%) occurred in this habitat type (Table
14;Appendix 4; Figure A4-2). Riparian habitats were relatively well represented in this
subzone, due primarily to the extensive riparian habitats along the Elk River. As with
other subzones, areas of continuous coniferous forest were not associated with large
numbers of bird detections or a high diversity of species.
Final Report 30
5.3.4.3 MSdk
The MSdk subzone dominated the extensive middle elevation coniferous forests of much
of the northern portions of the WSA, and presented relatively minimal habitat complexity
compared to lower-elevation subzones such as the ICHmk1 and IDFun. Second-growth
coniferous forests and clearcuts were the dominant habitat features, although localized
areas of riparian habitats and open fields occurred within the Michel Creek watershed.
Yellow-rumped Warbler and Warbling Vireo were the most abundant of the 49 species of
bird recorded in this subzone, with Pine Siskin, Steller’s Jay, Townsend’s Warbler, Ruby-
crowned Kinglet, American Robin, and MacGillivray’s Warbler also occurring in large
numbers (Table 17). Five species (Steller’s Jay, Mountain Chickadee, Red-breasted
Nuthatch, and Lincoln’s Sparrow) were recorded more frequently in the MSdk than in
any other subzone, while two species (Cooper’s Hawk, Red Crossbill) were recorded in
the MSdk but not in any other subzone surveyed.
Table 17. Bird species and number of detections in the MSdk subzone.
Yellow-rumped 37 0.69 Yellow Warbler 4 0.08
Warbler
Warbling Vireo 32 0.60 American Three-toed 3 0.06
Woodpecker
Pine Siskin 27 0.51 Song Sparrow 3 0.06
Swainson’s Thrush 24 0.45 Townsend’s Solitaire 3 0.06
Steller’s Jay 24 0.45 Varied Thrush 3 0.06
Townsend’s Warbler 24 0.45 White-crowned Sparrow 3 0.06
Ruby-crowned Kinglet 23 0.43 Black-capped Chickadee 2 0.04
American Robin 20 0.38 Brown Creeper 2 0.04
MacGillivray’s 20 0.38 Cedar Waxwing 2 0.04
Warbler
Dark-eyed Junco 19 0.36 Hairy Woodpecker 2 0.04
Chipping Sparrow 18 0.34 Northern Flicker 2 0.04
Wilson’s Warbler 15 0.28 Willow Flycatcher 2 0.04
Brown-headed 11 0.21 American Crow 1 0.02
Cowbird
Hammond’s 10 0.19 American Dipper 1 0.02
Flycatcher
Mountain Chickadee 7 0.13 Clark’s Nutcracker 1 0.02
Red-breasted Nuthatch 7 0.13 Cooper’s Hawk 1 0.02
Golden-crowned 6 0.11 Common Raven 1 0.02
Kinglet
Lincoln’s Sparrow 6 0.11 Dusky Flycatcher 1 0.02
Tree Swallow 6 0.11 Fox Sparrow 1 0.02
Northern Waterthrush 5 0.09 Hermit Thrush 1 0.02
Ruffed Grouse 5 0.09 Red Crossbill 1 0.02
Cassin’s Vireo 4 0.08 Red-naped Sapsucker 1 0.02
Northern Rough- 4 0.08 Violet-green Swallow 1 0.02
winged Swallow
Orange-crowned 4 0.08 Winter Wren 1 0.02
Warbler
Final Report 31

Western Tanager 4 0.08
The MSdk subzone was more homogeneous than either the IDFun or ICHmk1 subzones,
and included a much greater percentage of second-growth coniferous forest. This is
reflected in the habitat preferences of birds detected during the surveys, with the greatest
number of detections recorded in this habitat (Table 14;Appendix 4; Figure A4-3). Mixed
forest habitats typically support a more diverse assemblage of bird species than pure
coniferous habitats, and this was shown in the data as well. Although fewer birds overall
were detected in second-growth mixed habitats in the MSdk, more species were recorded
than in the second-growth coniferous forests.
5.3.4.4 ESSFwm
This subzone occurred at lower elevations within the area covered by the ESSF BEC
zone and was largely homogeneous montane coniferous forest, with little habitat
complexity aside from clearcuts and occasional brushy riparian areas. The uppermost
elevations of this subzone still retained small patches of snow cover throughout the
survey period, although this did not seem to affect the breeding birds. Wilson’s Warbler
was the most abundant species within this subzone, with Townsend’s Warbler,
MacGillivray’s Warbler, Dark-eyed Junco, and Hermit Thrush also common (Table 18).
Wilson’s Warblers and Fox Sparrows were more abundant in the ESSFwm then in any
other subzone. Black Swift was the only bird species that was recorded from the
ESSFwm but not from any other subzones.
Table 18. Bird species and number of detections in the ESSFwm subzone.
Wilson’s Warbler 31 0.70 Northern Waterthrush 6 0.14
Townsend’s Warbler 24 0.55 Warbling Vireo 6 0.14
MacGillivray’s Warbler 23 0.52 Olive-sided Flycatcher 5 0.11
Dark-eyed Junco 18 0.41 Gray Jay 4 0.09
Hermit Thrush 18 0.41 Steller’s Jay 4 0.09
Yellow-rumped Warbler 16 0.36 Red-breasted Nuthatch 3 0.07
Ruby-crowned Kinglet 14 0.32 Black Swift 2 0.05
Golden-crowned Kinglet 13 0.30 Cassin’s Finch 1 0.02
White-crowned Sparrow 13 0.30 Calliope Hummingbird 1 0.02
Varied Thrush 11 0.25 Clark’s Nutcracker 1 0.02
Fox Sparrow 9 0.20 Hammond’s Flycatcher 1 0.02
Pine Siskin 9 0.20 Western Tanager 1 0.02
American Robin 8 0.18 Willow Flycatcher 1 0.02
Swainson’s Thrush 8 0.18 Winter Wren 1 0.02
Second-growth coniferous forests dominate the landscape of the ESSFwm and, not
surprisingly, contributed the greatest percentage of bird detections (81%) during the
sampling period (Table 14;Appendix 4; Figure A4-4). Although present in a number of
locations, clearcut habitats typically supported few birds and even fewer species. Older
clearcuts with a developed shrub layer were more diverse than newer clearcuts and
supported small numbers of early-seral species such as MacGillivray’s Warbler, Wilson’s
Warbler, American Robin, and Dark-eyed Junco.
Final Report 32
5.3.4.5 ESSFwmw
Only one point-count was completed in the ESSFwmw subzone due to accessibility
difficulties resulting from persistent snow cover. The species diversity of this point was
similar to that found in the ESSFwm, which occurred adjacent to this subzone but at
lower elevations, with Yellow-rumped Warbler being the most abundant species (Table
19). The exception to this finding is the documentation of White-winged Crossbills in the
ESSFwmw. This species, which is closely associated with montane and subalpine
coniferous forests during the breeding season, was not detected in any other subzone
during our surveys.
No habitat associations are presented for the few observations due to lack of sufficient
data.
Table 19. Bird species and number of detections in the ESSFwmw subzone.
Species No. Species No.
Yellow-rumped Warbler 8 Golden-crowned Kinglet 1
Dark-eyed Junco 4 Hairy Woodpecker 1
Ruby-crowned Kinglet 3 Hermit Thrush 1
Mountain Chickadee 2 Olive-sided Flycatcher 1
Pine Siskin 2 Warbling Vireo 1
Townsend’s Warbler 2 White-winged Crossbill 1
Fox Sparrow 1
5.3.4.6 ESSFdk1
The ESSFdk1 occupied a similar elevational range to the ESSFwm but occurred
throughout the eastern portions of the WSA. Like other ESSF subzones, montane
coniferous forests were the dominant habitat feature on the landscape. The bird species
diversity was slightly higher than that of the ESSFwm, with 35 species detected.
Townsend’s Warbler, which was also common in the ESSFwm, was the most abundant
species in this subzone, with Yellow-rumped Warbler, MacGillivray’s Warbler, and
Wilson’s Warbler also being characteristic species (Table 20). Curiously, although it was
by far the most abundant species in the ESSFwm with 0.70 birds detected per point-
count, Wilson’s Warblers were somewhat less common in the ESSFdk1 (0.55 birds
detected per point-count). Three species (Boreal Chickadee, Pine Grosbeak, House
Finch) were detected only in the ESSFdk1 subzone during the course of the study,
although the first two species are expected to be widely (although perhaps sparsely)
distributed throughout all of the subzones of the ESSF. The single occurrence of a House
Finch in this subzone is a particular curiosity due to the species’ typical association with
low-elevation urban, suburban, and agricultural areas. This individual was likely a
dispersing bird from lower elevations that wandered into high elevation coniferous
forests accidentally. This detection is considered extralimital and not characteristic of the
ESSFdk1 subzone.
Final Report 33
Table 20.Bird species and number of detections in the ESSFdk1 subzone.

No. per No. per
Species No. Species No.
PC PC
Townsend’s Warbler 45 0.92 Orange-crowned Warbler 4 0.08
Yellow-rumped Warbler 42 0.86 Dusky Flycatcher 3 0.06
MacGillivray’s Warbler 29 0.59 Gray Jay 3 0.06
Wilson’s Warbler 27 0.55 Olive-sided Flycatcher 3 0.06
Warbling Vireo 26 0.53 Red-breasted Nuthatch 3 0.06
Ruby-crowned Kinglet 23 0.47 Steller’s Jay 3 0.06
Varied Thrush 21 0.43 Pine Grosbeak 2 0.04
Golden-crowned Kinglet 20 0.41 Townsend’s Solitaire 2 0.04
Hermit Thrush 16 0.33 American Three-toed Woodpecker 1 0.02
Pine Siskin 14 0.29 Boreal Chickadee 1 0.02
Swainson’s Thrush 14 0.29 House Finch 1 0.02
Dark-eyed Junco 13 0.27 Lincoln’s Sparrow 1 0.02
Winter Wren 10 0.20 Mountain Chickadee 1 0.02
Fox Sparrow 7 0.14 Northern Flicker 1 0.02
Northern Waterthrush 7 0.14 Rufous Hummingbird 1 0.02
American Robin 5 0.10 Western Tanager 1 0.02
Cedar Waxwing 5 0.10 Willow Flycatcher 1 0.02
Chipping Sparrow 5 0.10
Due to their predominance on the landscape, second-growth coniferous forests habitats
contributed the vast majority (68%) of bird detections within the ESSFdk1 subzone
(Table 14;Appendix 4; Figure A4-5). Other habitats that were present in small pockets,
such as riparian strips and second-growth mixed habitats, provided far fewer bird
detections due to their limited extent on the landscape. As with the ESSFwm, clearcut
habitats supported a rather impoverished bird community despite their widespread
distribution.
5.3.4.7 ESSFdkw
Only five point-counts were completed in the ESSFdkw subzone due to persistent snow
cover and the subsequent difficulties in accessing these high elevation forests. From the
small amount of data that were collected, Pine Siskin, Ruby-crowned Kinglet, and
Wilson’s Warbler were the commonly encountered species in this subzone (Table 21).
Other common species included Hermit Thrush, Red-breasted Nuthatch, and Townsend’s
Warbler. This selection of species is typical of all subzones within the ESSF zone, with
all of these species distributed generally throughout these montane coniferous forests
during the breeding season. No species were detected in the ESSFdkw that were not
detected elsewhere in the WSA.
As with the ESSFwmw, the limited amount of data available from this subzone precludes
any meaningful analysis of bird-habitat relationships. As a result, these data are not
presented for the ESSFdkw.
Final Report 34
Table 21.Bird species and number of detections in the ESSFdkw subzone.

Pine Siskin 4 0.80 MacGillivray’s Warbler 2 0.40
Ruby-crowned Kinglet 4 0.80 White-crowned Sparrow 2 0.40
Wilson’s Warbler 4 0.80 Yellow-rumped Warbler 2 0.40
Hermit Thrush 3 0.60 Fox Sparrow 1 0.20
Red-breasted Nuthatch 3 0.60 Golden-crowned Kinglet 1 0.20
Townsend’s Warbler 3 0.60 Red-tailed Hawk 1 0.20
Gray Jay 2 0.40 Winter Wren 1 0.20
Avian diversity was found to be relatively high within the WSA as a whole, although
certain portions of the region supported greater total numbers and species diversity than
other areas. Low elevation valley-bottom habitats, particularly where the landscape
provided high levels of habitat heterogeneity, produced the greatest numbers of
songbirds. This was particularly evident in the IDFun and ICHmk1 subzones, which
together supported 84% of the bird species that were recorded during the surveys. The
presence of a wide variety of habitat types within these subzones, including extensive
mixed forests, coniferous forests, riparian groves, clearcuts, dry grassy slopes, disturbed
areas, agricultural lands, suburban development, wetlands, and rivers and streams
allowed for a greater variety of bird species to occur within a relatively confined area.
Higher elevations (e.g., ESSF subzones) were typified by extensive montane coniferous
forests of Engelmann Spruce and Subalpine Fir and were found to support lower numbers
and, especially, diversity of birds. This finding is consistent with our expectations
because the reduced habitat heterogeneity and complexity relative to other BEC zones,
subzones and variants limits the variety of bird species that can occur. However, it is
important to note that several species such as Boreal Chickadee, Fox Sparrow, Wilson’s
Warbler, Pine Grosbeak, and White-winged Crossbill were solely or largely encountered
in the ESSF subzones and would not be expected to occur in any significant abundance
outside of these areas.
Mixed forests were shown to support particularly high numbers and diversity of birds in
the WSA. This habitat type was well represented at low elevations and undoubtedly
contributed to the wealth of songbirds in those areas. Avian diversity in mixed forests
within the WSA was dominated by the presence of species such as Warbling Vireo,
American Robin, Swainson’s Thrush, Hammond’s Flycatcher, and Pine Siskin. The
presence of both coniferous species and deciduous species in the canopy allows for a
wide variety of food resources to be available to birds and thus a greater diversity of bird
species are able to co-occur. Pure coniferous forests were less productive than mixed
forests, especially stands that consisted of only a single tree species, although a relatively
select group of species, including Yellow-rumped Warbler, Townsend’s Warbler, Dark-
eyed Junco, Chipping Sparrow, Golden-crowned Kinglet, and Ruby-crowned Kinglet,
were able to take advantage of the resources in this habitat type and were often very
common. Higher elevation coniferous forests, dominated by spruce and fir, supported
more species of birds than the extensive pure stands of Lodgepole Pine that occurred at
lower elevations. Wherever they occurred, pure deciduous forests supported species such
as Red-eyed Vireo, American Redstart, and Swainson’s Thrush, although rarely were
Final Report 35
pure deciduous forests encountered that did not contain some coniferous component in
the canopy or understory.
Open habitats within the WSA supported a rather different assemblage of birds than
forests, although there was much overlap between open brushy habitats and forests. For
example, species such as MacGillivray’s Warbler, Wilson’s Warbler, and Northern
Waterthrush, which were often common in open brushy areas, also occurred within the
understory of forested habitats where there was a well-developed shrub layer. The brushy
thickets associated with the edges of forests were particularly important to these species,
and their abundance would be expected to decrease with increasing distance from these
edge habitats. Some species, however, appeared to be obligates of open habitats and did
not readily penetrate into forests. This includes species such as Fox Sparrow, White-
crowned Sparrow, and Willow Flycatcher. Natural habitats of all types supported the
greatest diversity of species, and only a few species (e.g., American Robin, Dark-eyed
Junco, Chipping Sparrow) were moderately or strongly associated with disturbed
openings such as roads and recent clearcuts.
Only one species with federal or provincial designation as a species at risk was
encountered during the surveys. Olive-sided Flycatchers are considered federally
threatened by COSEWIC (BC Conservation Data Centre 2008) due to widespread
continent-wide declines of ~4% annually between 1966 and 1996, increasing in
magnitude in the latter part of this time period (Altman and Sallabanks 2000). British
Columbia remains one the species’ strongholds, and thus it is not considered to be at risk
by the CDC (BC Conservation Data Centre 2008), but such widespread declines have led
to a status of “threatened” in many jurisdictions within the U.S. and Canada. The breadth
of these declines, across many jurisdictions with varying forestry management practices,
suggests that the causes lie primarily on the Central American wintering grounds rather
than the North American breeding grounds (Altman and Sallabanks 2000). Habitat
loss/degradation and pesticide use (and the resultant declines in insect prey) in the tropics
are some of the more plausible explanations for these declines. However, Luepin et al.
(2004) recommend that additional research on the relationship between songbird
communities and forestry practices in montane coniferous forests of western North
America (BC) occur to ensure that the causal relationships identified by Altman and
Sallabanks (2000) are in fact plausible.
The habitats that exist within the Mist Mountain Coalbed Gas Project Area support many
habitats and bird species that are generally widespread throughout the western slopes of
the Rocky Mountains in BC. The exceptions to this are the habitats that occur within the
ICHmk1 and IDFun subzones along the Elk River. Several of the habitats present in these
subzones, particularly the open grassy slopes of the IDFun and the extensive mixed
forests and riparian and wetland complexes of the ICHmk1, are of limited extent
elsewhere in the region. As a result, it would be expected that any loss of these habitats
within these subzones would have a disproportionately greater impact on the bird fauna
than that in the ESSF subzones. Furthermore, most of the species at risk with the
potential to occur within the proposed Project Area (Table 8) are associated with habitats
that occur primarily in the ICHmk1 and IDFun.
Final Report 36
6 HABITAT AVAILABILTY
Baseline habitat models were developed to identify the locations and types of resources
(e.g. vegetation, terrain features, or anthropogenic features) that are important to specific
wildlife indicators, and summarize the quality, amount and geographic distributions of
suitable habitat for each indicator in the WSA. Baseline habitat availability was predicted
by applying three types of habitat models:
1. Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) models estimate the suitability of habitat for a
species by relating structural and spatial variables of the habitat (e.g., vegetation
and soils) to species-specific requirements (e.g., food and cover). A suitability
index (SI) value, ranging from 0 to 1 was assigned to each structural or spatial
variable. A value of 0 represents unsuitable habitat and a value of 1 represents
optimal habitat. Selection of variables for the models was based on species-
specific knowledge using a combination of literature review and expert opinion
(US Fish and Wildlife Service 1980, 1981). The final model combines individual
relationships for each variable of the habitat in a mathematical equation. The
construction of this equation considers the relative importance of each habitat
variable to the species.
2. Resource selection (RS) models are functions that compute the probability
(or relative probability) that a particular resource, characterized by a combination
of environmental variables, will be selected by an individual animal (Manly et al.
2002, Lele and Keim 2006). RS models were empirically derived using telemetry
and/or survey data.
3. Species richness (SR) models predict whether the number of species within an
area is high, medium, low, or zero. Richness classes are estimated using a set
literature-, expert-, and data-based criteria.
Table 22 outlines the approach used to measure wildlife habitat for each of the wildlife
indicators considered. The final habitat models are detailed in Appendix 2, including: a
description of the data, methods, and model covariates used; the final model functions
and coefficients; and evaluations of model fit.
Table 22. Model approach used to develop habitat suitability ratings for wildlife indicators in the
Wildlife Study Area
Wildlife Species / Season Model Type
Elk Winter Resource Selection – RSPF
Furbearer HSI
Moose Winter Resource Selection – RSPF
Mountain Goat Winter Resource Selection - RSPF
Rock Mountain Bighorn Sheep Resource Selection - RSPF
Songbirds – Spring/Breeding Species Richness / Habitat Type
Final Report 37
The habitat models produced a continuous range of suitability index values, selection
probabilities, or indices of relative selection probability scaled from 0.0 to 1.0 (wherein a
value of 1.0 is optimal habitat). To summarize available habitat, continuous model
outputs were categorized into discrete habitat classes. Habitat models for furbearers and
Songbirds were classified in a 4-class rating scheme to parallel the RISC Wildlife Habitat
Rating Standards (RISC 1999):
Habitat Class 1 – 0.76- 1.0 High Value
Habitat Class 2 – 0.26-0.75 Moderate Value
Habitat Class 3 – 0.10-0.25 Low Value
Habitat Class 4 – 0.0 -0.09 Nil to Low Value
Resource selection models for wintering elk, moose, mountain goats, and bighorn sheep
were classified in a 6-class rating scheme to also parallel the RISC Wildlife Habitat
Rating Standards (RISC 1999):
Habitat Class 1 – 0.76- 1.0 High Value
Habitat Class 2 – 0.51-0.75 Moderately High Value
Habitat Class 3 – 0.26-0.50 Moderate Value
Habitat Class 4 – 0.16-0.25 Low Value
Habitat Class 5 – 0.10-0.15 Very Low Value
Habitat Class 6 – 0.00-0.09 Nil to Very Low Value
The availability of wildlife habitat in the Project and WSAs is summarized below by
indicator.
6.1 Moose Winter Habitat

Moose winter habitat was estimated from a combination of winter GPS telemetry
locations and variables for vegetation cover, solar exposure, elevation, and slope (see
Appendix 2). The final habitat model for moose had a good fit with GPS telemetry data
and with independent aerial survey data collected across the WSA. Sites at an elevation
greater than 1800 metres above sea level were assumed not available to wintering moose
given restrictive snow conditions (Poole and Stuart-Smith 2006). Wintering moose were
estimated to select sites having the following resource conditions or combinations of the
following resources conditions (as possible):
 Sites having low or high cover of coniferous trees (quadratic relationship between
RS and conifer tree cover);
 Sites having increased solar exposure (positive, linear relationship between RS
and solar exposure);
Final Report 38
 Sites having lower slope steepness (negative, linear relationship between RS and
slope);
 Sites that are not within grassland (non-forested with vegetated grass cover)
dominated ecosystems;
 Sites that have been logged between 10 and 40 years previous;
 Sites that are in forested stands containing greater than 10 percent deciduous tree
cover; and
 Sites that contain tall (>2 m) and low (<2 m) shrubby vegetation understory.
The amount and distribution of winter moose habitat is summarized by habitat class for
the Project and WSAs in Table 23 and depicted on Map 8.
Table 23. Moose winter habitat availability summarized for the Project and Wildlife Study Areas.
Moose Winter Project Area Wildlife Study Area
Area Percentage Area Percentage
Habitat Class (ha) (%) (ha) (%)
1 2,494 3.8 6,671 5.1
2 6,517 10.0 16,777 12.8
3 15,102 23.1 31,502 24.0
4 7,077 10.8 14,458 11.0
5 1,007 1.5 3,934 3.0
6 33,126 50.7 58,073 44.2
6.2 Elk Winter Habitat

Elk winter habitat was estimated from a combination of winter aerial survey locations
and variables for vegetation cover, solar exposure, and elevation (see Appendix 2). The
final habitat model for elk had a good fit with aerial survey data and with independent
telemetry data collected in and surrounding reclaimed mine land in the northern half of
the WSA. Sites at an elevation greater than 1800 metres above sea level were assumed
not available to wintering elk given restrictive snow conditions (Poole and Stuart-Smith
2006). Wintering elk were estimated to select sites having the following resource
conditions or combinations of the following resources conditions (as possible):
 Sites having low cover of coniferous trees (negative, linear relationship between
RS and conifer tree cover);
and solar exposure);
 Sites that are in grassland (non-forested with vegetated grass cover) dominated
ecosystems;
 Sites that are in forested stands containing Douglas-fir as the leading tree species;
 Sites that are in forested stands containing greater than 10 percent deciduous tree
cover; and
 Sites that are below 1500 metres elevation, above sea level.
Final Report 39
The amount and distribution of elk moose habitat is summarized by habitat class for the
Project and Wildlife Study Areas in Table 24 and depicted on Map 9.
Table 24. Elk winter habitat availability summarized for the Project and Wildlife Study Areas.
Elk Winter Project Area Wildlife Study Area
1 451 0.7 1,916 1.5
2 326 0.5 1,550 1.2
3 1,198 1.8 5,367 4.1
4 3,734 5.7 15,809 12.0
5 26,161 40.1 48,078 36.6
6 33,447 51.2 58,695 44.7
6.3 Mountain Goat Winter Habitat

Mountain goat winter habitat in the WSA was predicted from a peer-reviewed RS model
estimated from GPS-collared mountain goats in northern British Columbia (Lele and
Keim 2006). Based on the model, sites that are closer to escape terrain and that have a
greater solar exposure are selected by wintering mountain goats. Poole et al. (2006)
found similar relationships when estimating RS from GPS-collared mountain goats in the
East Kootenay Region (but not within the WSA). A small sample of winter mountain
goat observations collected during aerial surveys (n=88) were used to assess the fit of the
model in the WSA. The model is considered to have a reasonable fit with data from the
WSA (see Appendix 2).
In addition to the winter habitat model, known winter mountain goat ranges were
delineated in the WSA by buffering historic winter mountain goat sightings in and
surrounding the WSA by 2 km. A 2 km distance was used given wintering mountain goat
home range sizes and movements (Keim 2004, Poole et al. 2006, and Taylor 2006).
Known winter mountain goat ranges are a spatial extent of known winter habitat use
(historic use). Historic mountain goat use is important because mountain goats exhibit
strong winter habitat range fidelity across years (with winter range fidelity measured at
greater than 80 percent: Taylor et al. 2006 and Keim 2004). Predicted mountain goat
habitats by the RS model, which are also located within known winter mountain goat
ranges, are assumed to have the greatest likelihood of winter mountain goat use in the
WSA.
The amount and distribution of mountain goat winter habitat is summarized by habitat
class for the Project Area, WSA, and Known Habitat Ranges (as described in the
paragraph above) in Table 25 and depicted on Map 10.
Final Report 40
Table 25. Mountain goat winter habitat availability summarized for the Project and Wildlife Study
Areas.
Mountain
Goat Known Habitat
Winter Project Area Wildlife Study Area Ranges*
Habitat Area Percentage Percentage Area Percentage
Class (ha) (%) Area (ha) (%) (ha) (%)
1 0.00 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
2 923 1.4 2,389 1.8 715 7.7
3 2,197 3.4 4,857 3.7 997 10.6
4 1,743 2.7 3,880 3.0 629 6.7
5 1,518 2.3 3,633 2.8 555 5.9
6 58,938 90.2 116,655 88.8 6,544 69.3
*Range of historic winter habitat use in the WSA.
6.4 Bighorn Sheep Winter Habitat

Bighorn sheep winter habitat was predicted from two spatially explicit RS models that
were estimated from winter bighorn sheep location data collected in and surrounding the
WSA (see Appendix 2). Two separate models were estimated from the data because
winter bighorn sheep habitat use had a bimodal distribution with elevation and slope that
was distinguishable by geographic areas in and surrounding the WSA: west and east
strata areas. The two habitat models were predicted across the WSA in a GIS, using a
discrete polygon boundary to distinguish each stratum. There is likely a gradient of
changing habitat selection rather than a discrete spatial change by strata; however this
gradient was not distinguishable in a single model. Bighorn sheep habitat predictions at
sites nearer the boundary line (within 5 km) that distinguish the two model strata may be
less predictive than sites located further from the boundary line. Both of the of the
bighorn sheep winter habitat models had a good fit with the data that were used to derive
the models (see appendix 2).
Wintering bighorn sheep in the eastern stratum were estimated to select sites having the
following resource conditions or combinations of the following resources conditions (as
possible):
 Sites nearer slopes that are greater than 45 degrees (negative, linear relationship
between RS and distance to steep slopes);
 Sites located on low or high elevations (quadratic relationship between RS and
elevation);
and solar exposure); and
 Sites located on slopes that are between 25 and 50 degrees.
Final Report 41
Wintering bighorn sheep in the western stratum were estimated to select sites having the
following resource conditions or combinations of the following resources conditions (as
possible):
 Sites nearer slopes that are greater than 35 degrees (negative, linear relationship
between RS and distance to steep slopes);
 Sites having lower elevations (negative, linear relationship between RS and
elevation); and
and solar exposure).
Known winter bighorn ranges were delineated in addition to the RS models in the WSA
using the same method used for mountain goats (described in section 6.3). Similar to
mountain goats, bighorn sheep exhibit strong winter habitat range fidelity across years
(Demarchi et al. 2000; Geist 1971; Fiesta-Bianchet 1986; Stevens and Goodson 1993).
Predicted bighorn sheep habitats by the RS models, which are also located within known
winter bighorn sheep ranges, are assumed to have the greatest likelihood of winter habitat
use in the WSA.
The amount and distribution of bighorn sheep winter habitat is summarized by habitat
class for the Project Area, WSA, and Known Habitat Ranges in Table 26 and depicted on
Map 11.
The WSA has small pockets of high value habitats but generally, the WSA is primarily of
a low habitat value and low known use by sheep (Table 26; Teske and Forbes 2002). The
Project Area has a lesser amount of high quality habitats for sheep than areas in the WSA
(Table 26). This finding is consistent with the fact that known bighorn sheep ranges in the
WSA are primarily located outside of the Project Area (Map 11).
Table 26. Bighorn sheep winter habitat availability summarized for the Project and Wildlife Study
Areas.
Sheep Known Habitat
Winter Project Area Wildlife Study Area Ranges*
Habitat Area Percentage Area Percentage Area Percentage
Class (ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%)
1 228 0.4 2,045 1.6 714.44 6.2
2 2,038 3.1 5,424 4.1 1,153.63 10.0
3 10,625 16.3 21,880 16.6 3,811.05 32.7
4 12,538 19.2 23,322 17.7 4,190.60 35.5
5 9,766 15.0 17,665 13.4 3,736.74 31.5
6 30,114 46.1 61,078 46.5 5,060.51 42.3
*Range of historic winter habitat use in the WSA.
Final Report 42
6.5 Furbearer Winter Habitat

The furbearer model is based on forest stand structure using a knowledge-based modeling
approach (HSI) and has been evaluated for the WSA (see Appendix 2). The furbearer
model has a good fit with independent data collected in the WSA; however, the analysis
to determine habitat use or avoidance is of lower rigour than RS models. In addition, the
data used for evaluating habitat use are from reconnaissance level field surveys, so
further investigations may be required to confirm the habitat value of predicted areas.
Furbearers for this model include mustelids, canids, or felids reported during the winter
ground surveys.
The furbearer model is consistent to other furbearer studies in the region with tall
coniferous stands and forest structure being important habitat factors for furbearers and
their prey (Lofroth 1993; Mowat 2007). Provided in Map 12 and Table 27 is a summary
of habitat availability predicted for wintering furbearers by habitat class in the Project
Area and WSA.
Table 27. Furbearer winter habitat values summarized for the Project Area and Wildlife Study Area.
Furbearer Winter Project Area Wildlife Study Area
1 13,394 20.5 19,626 14.9
2 5,595 8.6 9,101 6.9
3 21,605 33.1 41,742 31.8
4 24,724 37.9 60,946 46.4
6.6 Avian Richness Model

The avian richness model is based on the - number of species detected during songbird
point count surveys (see Section 5.3.4) by habitat type in the WSA. The model rules and
habitat assumptions are detailed in Appendix 2. Nil areas are assumed to be non-
productive burns, not-sufficiently restocked polygons, open range, and polygons assigned
as non-productive in the VRI dataset.
The vegetated area of the Mist Mountain WSA includes ~123,038 ha of vegetated
habitat. These habitats were ranked as high (~6,769 ha); moderate (~25, 745 ha), low
(~66,609) and nil (~32,292 ha) for potential songbird richness in the WSA (Table 28).
The distribution of high, moderate, low and nil potential species richness can be seen in
Map 13. Species richness potential is highest (i.e., high and moderate ratings) in the
lower elevation areas around the perimeter of the WSA boundary and within low lying
valley bottoms of Coal Creek in the west, Lodgepole Creek in the south, Flathead River
in the southeast, Michel Creek in the north, east, and south, and Alexander Creek in the
north (Map 13).
Final Report 43
Table 28. Songbird richness habitat values summarized for the Project Area and Wildlife Study
Area.
Songbird
Richness Project Area Wildlife Study Area
1 2,545 3.9 6,769 5.2
2 13,455 20.6 25,745 19.6
3 38,323 58.7 66,609 50.7
4 10,994 16.8 32,292 24.6
7 SUMMARY
LGL Limited was hired by Matrix to complete baseline wildlife assessments for moose,
elk, bighorn sheep, mountain goat, and songbirds. In addition, the LGL study included
data collection on the presence of small/mid-sized carnivores and their prey. The baseline
assessment was intended to provide an estimation of current conditions for each indicator
through a review of existing information, completion of reconnaissance-level winter and
spring surveys for species distribution and diversity, and by deriving habitat models to
estimate habitat availability.
The review of historic information, and the completion of reconnaissance-level winter
and spring surveys for species distribution and diversity occurred in the winter and spring
of 2008, and the habitat models were derived in the late winter of 2009. Provincial
standards were used for all the field surveys, and where applicable provincial standards
were used in deriving habitat models.
Generally, the findings were consistent with other studies in the WSA and in the East
Kootenay Region where winter habitat use is influenced by snow depth for ungulates, and
to a lesser extent furbearers. Furbearers were preferring habitats where forest stand
structure and overstory reduced snow depths at higher elevations than for ungulates.
The information collected will assist in the overall baseline assessment of the WSA by
Matrix and it can assist in directing further studies if activities in the WSA occur in the
future by Matrix Solutions Inc. or BP Canada.
8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the support that BP Canada and Matrix Solutions Inc.
provided in completing the project. We would like to acknowledge the field assistants
provided by the Ktunaxa Kinbasket Development Corporation and their efforts during the
field surveys. We would like to acknowledge the authors of the report. Norm MacLean,
Virgil Hawkes, Mike Demarchi, James Fenneman (LGL Limited), and Jonah Keim
(Matrix Solutions Inc.) prepared the report. Finally, we would like to acknowledge Betsy
Evans, Bea McNaughton, and Jonah Keim from Matrix Solutions Inc, for their assistance
throughout the project and their reviews of the document.
Final Report 44
9 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS
I. Teske. BC Ministry of Environment-Kootenay Region, Cranbrook, B.C.
10 REFERENCES
Altman, B. and R.Sallabanks. 2000. Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperii). The
Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology;
Available at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/502.
Apps, C. D., and B. N. McLellan. 2006. Factors influencing the dispersion and
fragmentation of endangered mountain caribou populations. Biological
Conservation 130:84-97.
Apps, C. D., B. N. McLellan, J. G. Woods, and M. F. Proctor. 2004. Estimating grizzly
bear distribution and abundance relative to habitat and human influence. Journal of
Wildlife Management 68:138-152.
Apps, C. D., J. L. Weaver, P. C. Paquet, B. Bateman and B. N. McLellan. 2007.
Carnivores in the southern Canadian Rockies: Core areas and connectivity across
the Crowsnest Highway. wildlife Conservation Society Canada Conservation
Report No. 3. Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
BC Conservation Data Centre. 2008. BC species and ecosystems explorer. Available at:
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/atrisk/toolintro.html.
BC Forest Service. 2008. Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification Program, zone and
subzone descriptions. Available at: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/becweb/resources/
classificationreports/subzones/index.html.
Bibby, C.J., N.D.Burgess, D.A.Hill, and S.Mustoe. 2000. Bird Census Techniques.
London: Academic Press. 302 pp.
Bircher, D., N. Janz, I. Hatter, and J.Forbes. 2001. East Kootenay elk management plan
2000-2004. B.C. Ministry of Environment, wildlife Branch.
Bunnell,F.L. 2004. Species accounting system for the East Kootenays. Report prepared
for Tembec (BC) Inc., Cranbrook, BC.
Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson (2002) Model selection and inference: a practical
information-theoretic approach (Second edition). Springer-Verlag, New York, New
York, USA.
Buskirk, S.W., and Powell, R.A. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American Martens.
In Martens, sables, and fishers; biology and conservation. Edited by Buskirk, S.W.,
Harestad, A.S., Raphael, M.G., Powell, R.A. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New
York. pp. 283-296.
Final Report 45
Campbell, R.W., N.K.Dawe, I.McTaggart-Cowan, J.M.Cooper, G.W.Kaiser, and

M.C.E.McNall. 1990a. The Birds of British Columbia – Volume 1 (Introduction,
Loons through Waterfowl). Victoria: Royal British Columbia Museum. 514 pp.
Campbell, R.W., N.K.Dawe, I.McTaggart-Cowan, J.M.Cooper, G.W.Kaiser, and
M.C.E.McNall. 1990b. The Birds of British Columbia – Volume 2 (Diurnal Birds
of Prey through Woodpeckers). Victoria: Royal British Columbia Museum. 636 pp.
Campbell, R.W., N.K.Dawe, I.McTaggart-Cowan, J.M.Cooper, G.W.Kaiser, M.C.E.
McNall, and G.E.J.Smith. 1997. The Birds of British Columbia – Volume 3
(Flycatchers through Vireos). Vancouver: UBC Press. 693 pp.
Campbell, R.W., N.K.Dawe, I.McTaggart-Cowan, J.M.Cooper, G.W.Kaiser, A.C.
Stewart, and MC.E.McNall. 2001. The Birds of British Columbia – Volume 4
(Wood-warblers through Old World Sparrows). Vancouver: UBC Press. 739 pp.
Cameron, R. D., W. T. Smith, R. G. White, and B. Griffith. 2005. Central Arctic Caribou
and petroleum development: Distributional, nutritional, and reproductive
implications. Arctic 58:1-9.
Ciarniello, L. M., M. S. Boyce, and H. Beyer. 2003. Resource selection function model
for the plateau landscape of the Parsnip grizzly bear project (an update for 2003).
Department of Biological Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2008. COSEWIC’s
assessment process and criteria. Available at: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/pdf/
assessment_process_e.pdf.
Davis, R., K. Stuart-Smith, and J. Prezecek. 2005. Stand structure and structural element
projections for the Invermere TSA. FIA report for Tembec and Canfor.
Demarchi, D. A. 1986. Biophysical resources of the East Kootenay Area: wildlife. B.C.
Min. Environ., Lands and Parks, Victoria, B.C. Tech. Rep. 22. 134 p.
Demarchi, R.A., C.L. Hartwig, and D.A. Demarchi. 2000. Status of the Rocky Mountain
Bighorn Sheep in British Columbia. B.C. Min. Environ., Lands and Parks, Wildl.
Br., Victoria, B.C. Wildl. Bull. B-99. 56 p.
Dyer, S. J., J. P. O'Neill, S. M. Wasel, and S. Boutin. 2002. Quantifying barrier effects of
roads and seismic lines on movements of female woodland caribou in northeastern
Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology-Revue Canadienne De Zoologie 80:839-845.
Festa-Bianchet, M. 1986. Seasonal dispersion of overlapping mountain sheep ewe
groups. J. Wildl.Manage. 50(2):325–330.
Forsite Consultants Ltd. 2004. Cranbrook timber supply area: analysis report. A report
prepared for Cranbrook Timber Supply Area Timber Defined Forest Area
Management (DFAM) Group. Ministry of Forests and Range. Cranbrook, British
Columbia.
Geist, V. 1971. Mountain sheep: a study in behaviour and evolution. Univ. Chicago
Press, Chicago, IL.383pp.
Final Report 46
Halko, R. and K. Hebert. 1997. 1997 elk inventory - East Kootenay Trench. Interior
Reforestation Co. Ltd. Cranbrook BC 316pp + appendices.
Halko, R., and K. Hebert. 2000. 2000 southern East Kootenay goat aerial survey.
Unpublished report for British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and
Parks, Cranbrook, British Columbia.
Halko, R., K. Hebert, and D. Sam. 2000. 1999–2000 East Kootenay moose aerial survey.
Unpublished report for Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks, Cranbrook, B.C.
Johnson, C.J and M.P. Gillingham. 2004. Mapping uncertainty: sensitivity of wildlife
habitat ratings to expert opinion. Journal of Applied Ecology, 41, 1032-1041.
Keating, K.A. and S. Cherry. 2004. Use and interpretation of logistic regression in habitat
selection studies. Journal of wildlife Management 68: 774-789.New York, USA.
Keim, J. 2004. Modelling core winter habitat and spatial movements of collared
mountain goats. Proceeding Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council.14:65-86
Keim, J.L. and S.R. Lele. 2006. Analyzing Aerial Survey Observations for Predicting
Mountain Goat Habitat Suitability (in the Nass). BC Ministry of Environment,
Skeena Region, Smithers, BC.
Keim, J.L. and S.R. Lele. 2007. Estimating the Resource Selection Function and the
Resource Selection Probability Function for Woodland Caribou. BC Ministry of
Environment, Skeena Region, Smithers, BC.
Kinley, T.A. 2007. Rocky mountain bighorn sheep habitat and population assessment for
the East Kootenay Trench. Prepared for East Kootenay wildlife Association.
Lele, S.R. and J.L. Keim. 2006. Weighted distributions and estimation of resource
selection probability functions. Ecology 87(12): 3021-3028
Leupin, E.E., T.E. Dickinson, and K. Martin. 2004. Resistance of forest songbirds to
habitat perforation in a high-elevation conifer forest. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research, 34: 1919–1928.
Lofroth, E. C. 1993. Scale dependent analyses of habitat selection by marten in the Sub-
Boreal Spruce Biogeoclimatic Zone. M.Sc. thesis, Simon Fraser Univ., Burnaby,
B.C.
Lyon, L. J. 1983. Road density models describing habitat effectiveness for elk. Journal of
Forestry 77:658–660.
MacLean N, M. Demarchi, and M. Todd. 2006. Winter habitat verification for mountain
goats in the Nass Study Area. A report by LGL Limited prepared for the Ministry of
Environment-Skeena Region. Smithers. BC. 108 pp.
Manly, B.F.J., L.L. McDonald, D.L. Thomas, T.L. McDonald and W.P. Erickson (2002)
Resource selection by animals: statistical analysis and design for field studies
(Second edition), Kluwer, Boston, USA.
McCune, B. and D. Keon. 2002. Equations for potential annual direct incident radiation
and heat load. Journal of vegetation science 13: 603-606.
Final Report 47
Mowat, G. 2002. Measuring carnivore distribution to monitor changes in forest

biodiversity, final report. Tembec Inc. Box 4600, Cranbrook, British Columbia,
Canada.
Mowat, G. 2007. Large carnivore population review for the Kootenay Region. Prepared
for B.C. Ministry of Environment.
Mowat, G. and D. Paetkau. 2002. Estimating marten population size using hair capture
and genetic tagging in southeast British Columbia. Wildl. Biol. 8(3):In Press.
Pierce, D. J., and J. M. Peek. 1984. Moose habitat use and selection patterns in north
central Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:1335–1343.
Pollard and Keim. 2006. Identifying Mountain Goat Winter Ranges in the North Coast of
British Columbia. Ministry of Environment, Skeena Region, Smithers BC.
Poole, K. 2005. Moose inventory of Management Unit 4-05, East Kootenay, January
2005. Unpublished report prepared for British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land
and Air Protection, Cranbrook, British Columbia, Canada.
Poole, K. 2006. Moose inventory of Management Units 4-22 (Bull River) and 4-20 (St.
Mary River), East Kootenay, January 2006. Unpublished report prepared for British
Columbia Ministry of Environment, Cranbrook, British Columbia.
Poole, K. G., and K. D. Bachmann. 2006. Mineral lick use by GPS radio collared
mountain goats in southeastern British Columbia. Unpublished report for Tembec
Inc., Cranbrook, British Columbia, Canada.
Poole, K. G., and B. P. Park. 2001. Elk habitat use and movement patterns in the Lardeau Valley,
West Kootenay, 1998–2002, final report. Unpublished report for Meadow Creek Cedar
Ltd., Kaslo, British Columbia, Canada, and Slocan Forest Products Ltd., Slocan, British
Columbia, Canada.
Poole, K. G., and K. Stuart-Smith. 2004. Winter habitat selection by moose in the East Kootenay,
British Columbia, final report. Tembec Inc. Box 4600, Cranbrook, British Columbia,
Canada.
Poole, K. G., and K. Stuart-Smith. 2006. Winter habitat selection by female moose in
western interior montane forests. Can. J. Zool. 84:1823-1832.Poole, K. G., K.
Stuart-Smith, and I.E. Teske. 2006. Wintering strategies by mountain goats in
interior mountains. Unpublished report prepared for Tembec Inc., Cranbrook, and
British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Cranbrook, British Columbia, Canada.
Poole, K. T. Kinley, and R. Klafki. 2008. Moose inventory of the Lodgepole (MU 4-02),
Upper Flathead (MU 4-01), and Lower Elk (MU 4-23B), East Kootenay, December
2007 and January 2008. Prepared for B.C. Ministry of Environment.Poole, K.G.,
and R. Klafki. 2005. Mountain goat survey in the East Kootenay, British Columbia,
August 2005. Unpublished report for British Columbia Conservation Foundation,
Surrey, and British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Cranbrook, British
Columbia.
Preston, M.I., P. Vernier, and R.W. Campbell. 2005. Relating Songbirds to Forest
Structure Classes in the Cranbrook Timber Supply Area for Effectiveness
Monitoring and Species Accounting. Final report. Unpublished report by Westcam
Final Report 48
Consulting Services for Tembec – Western Canada Division, Cranbrook, BC. 68

pp.
Quayle, J. F., A. G. MacHutchon, and D. N. Jury. 2001. Modeling moose sightability in
south-central British Columbia. Alces 37:43–54.
RISC (Resources Information Standards Committee). 1999. BC wildlife habitat ratings
standards version 2.0. Terrestrial Ecosystems Task Force, Ecosystem Working
Group, Province of British Columbia, Victoria British Columbia Canada.
RISC (Resources Information Standards Committee). 2002. Aerial-based inventory
methods for selected ungulates: bison, mountain goat, mountain sheep, moose, elk,
deer and caribou. Standards for components of British Columbia’s biodiversity No.
32. Version 2.0. Resources Information Standards Committee, B.C. Ministry of
Sustainable Resource Management, Victoria, British Columbia.
Robertson, R.S. 2001. Breeding bird survey program in Tree Farm Licence # 14.
Invermere Forest District, British Columbia. Report prepared for Tembec Industries
Inc., Cranbrook, B.C. Matrix Resources Services, Golden.
Robertson, R.S. 2002. Environmental monitoring in Tembec’s Tree Farm Licence # 14.
Breeding bird surveys, the first three years (1999-2001). Report prepared for
Tembec Industries Inc., Cranbrook, B.C. Matrix Resources Services, Golden.
Robertson, R.S. 2004. Environmental monitoring in Tembec’s Tree Farm Licence # 14.
Breeding bird surveys, year six (2004). Report prepared for Tembec Industries Inc.,
Cranbrook, B.C. Matrix Resources Services, Golden.
Serrouya, R., and K. G. Poole. 2001. Elk habitat suitability index modeling in the
Lardeau and Duncan valleys, West Kootenay, British Columbia. Arrow Innovative
Forestry Practices Agreement (IFPA) Activity #718794. Unpublished report
prepared for Arrow Forest Licence Group IFPA, Slocan Forest Products Ltd.,
Slocan, British Columbia, Canada.
Serrouya, R., and R. D. D’Eon. 2000. An application of SIMFOR using an elk habitat
suitability index in southeast British Columbia. Report prepared for British
Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks. Nelson. B.C. Kokanee
Forests Consulting Ltd.
Simpson, K., J. P. Kelsall, and C. Clement. 1988. Caribou and moose habitat inventory
and habitat management guidelines in the Columbia River drainage near
Revelstoke, BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Nelson, British
Columbia.
Stevens, D.R., and N.J. Goodson. 1993. Assessing effects of removals for transplanting
on a high elevation Bighorn Sheep population. Conserv. Biol.7(4):908–915.
Szkorupa. T. 2005. Pre-season elk inventory 2005. unpublished report. Ministry of
Environment. Cranbrook. B.C.
Takats, L, R. Stewart, M. Todd, R. Bonar, J. Beck, B. Beck, R. Quinlan. 1999. American
Marten habitat suitability index model version 5. A report prepared for Foothills
Model Forest. Hinton, Alberta.
Final Report 49
Taylor,S, Wall, W, and Kulis, Y. 2006. Habitat Selection by Mountain Goats in South
Coastal British Columbia. Proceeding Northern Wild Sheep and Goat
Council.15:141-157
Teske, I.E., and B. Forbes. 2001. Southern East Kootenay mountain goat aerial survey.
Unpublished report. wildlife Branch, British Columbia Ministry of Environment,
Lands and Parks, Cranbrook, British Columbia.
Teske, I.E., and B. Forbes. 2002. East Kootenay rocky mountain bighorn sheep
inventory: winter 2001-2002. Unpublished report. wildlife Branch, British
Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Cranbrook, British Columbia.
Thomas, J. W. H. Black, R. J. Scherzinger, and R. J. Pedersen. 1979. Deer and elk. In
Wildlife habitats in managed forests--the Blue Mountains of Oregon and
Washington, ed. J. W. Thomas, 104-127. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest
Service, Agricultural Handbook Number 553, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. Standards for the development of habitat suitability
index models. 103 ESM. U.S.D.I. Fish Wildl. Serv.,Div. Ecol. Serv. n.p.
Van Dyke, F., B. L. Probert, and G. M. Van Beek. 1995. Moose home range fidelity and
core area characteristics in south-central Montana. Alces 31:93–104.
Weaver, John L. 2001. The transboundary Flathead: a critical landscape for carnivores in
the Rocky Mountains. WCS Working Papers No. 18, July 2001. Available for
download from http://www.wcs.org/science
Wells, R, A. Norris, N. Mahony, K. Stuart-Smith, and K. De Groot. 2008. Incidental
Take and Protecting Habitat for Migratory Birds: An East Kootenay Pilot Project.
Unpublished report by Department of Forest Science, University of British
Columbia, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Delta, BC, and
Tembec, Western Canada Division Cranbrook BC for Tembec – Western Canada
Division, Cranbrook, BC. 43 pp.
Wells, R.W., Haag, D., Braumandl, T., Bradford, G. and Moy, A. 2004. Ecological
representation in the East Kootenay Conservation Program Study Area.
Unpublished Report for Tembec and Canfor. Version 2. August 2004.
Wilson S.F, and R.L. Morley. 2005. East Kootenay elk management plan 2005-2009.
B.C. Ministry of Environment, Wildlife Branch.
Final Report 50
11 APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Wildlife Survey Data and Forms
For detailed information on the aerial surveys and ground transects please see ‘LGL Mist
Mountain MOGO Survey February 17 2008.xls’ and ‘LGL Mist Mountain Transect Data
February 15-25 2008.xls’ Excel spreadsheets in the Appendix 1 folder on the report CD.
Appendix 2. Wildlife Habitat Models
There are three sections in this appendix relating to the types of models applied and the
evaluation of fit reported for this project. The models applied for this project include;
1) resource selection models for elk, moose, mountain goat, and bighorn sheep;
2) HSI model for furbearers; and
3) a songbird richness habitat model.
In addition, information on the Ungulate Winter Range in the WSA is located in the
Appendix 2 folder on the report CD.
Resource Selection Models
Resource Selection Analysis

Recently developed statistical approaches for evaluating resource selection by animals
(RSPF – Lele and Keim 2006) and conventional techniques (RSF – Manly et al. 2002)
were used for assessing resource selection by animals. Resource selection models were fit
for moose, elk and bighorn sheep from newly collected and existing data on habitat use
and availability in the Mist Mountain WSA. Additionally, a previously developed
resource selection model for mountain goat was extrapolated and evaluated for fit in the
Mist Mountain WSA.
The following four resource selection models are detailed in this appendix:
1. a winter season (December to April inclusive) model for moose;
2. a winter season (December to April inclusive) model for elk;
3. a winter season (December to April inclusive) model for bighorn sheep; and
4. a winter season (December to April inclusive) model for mountain goats.
Data Sources
The primary digital spatial data sources used for the resource selection models are the
provincial Digital Elevation Model (DEM), Terrain Resources Information Mapping
(TRIM), Anthropogenic Development coverage developed by BP Canada, and the
Vegetation Resource Inventory (VRI) developed by Tembec Inc. and BC Ministry of
Forests and Range and modified by Matrix Solutions Inc.
Final Report 51
The DEM has a 25 m resolution and was the data source for generating covariates
relating to aspect, slope, elevation, topography and heat load for the WSA.
The VRI is at a 1:20,000 scale and was used to generate vegetation covariates such as
conifer density, structural stage, and leading tree species.
TRIM is a provincial 1:20,000 dataset of roads, contours, and hydrology and was used for
generating covariates relating to access, water, and riparian features. For more
information on all the provincial government digital data sources, please see the British
Columbia Lands and Resources Data Warehouse (www.lrdw.ca).
The Anthropogenic Development is at a 1:20,000 scale developed for the Mist Mountain
Coalbed Project. The coverage was used to zero habitat ratings where habitat classes are
overlapping on the human development footprint.
The digital wildlife location data was accessed through the provincial Species Inventory
Database System (SPI, http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wildlife/wsi/spidatasystem.htm ),
Ministry of Environment regional biologists, regional consultants, Teck Coal Limited,
Tembec Inc, and surveys specific to this project. Matrix Solutions Inc. coordinated the
data acquisition outside of the digital data available through SPI.
All digital data used in the analysis was in Universal Transverse Mercator zone 11 North
(UTM 11 N) projection and in North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83).
Arcview 3.2a© and ArcGis 9.2 © were used for all spatial analysis and in the
development of maps included with this report.
The statistical software program R Statistical Computing Version 2.2.6© was used to
conduct the statistical analysis for the resource selection models.
Data and Covariates
A use / available study design (Manly et al. 2002, Keating and Cherry 2004, Lele and
Keim 2006) was employed in the analysis of data and in the development of statistical
models. In this analysis, used sites are defined by animal locations that represent areas of
known habitat use (such as aerial survey or telemetry observations). Available sites are
locations that were randomly selected from within the Mist Mountain WSA. Hence,
available sites represent what kinds of resources might be potentially available to animals
within the area of analysis. The used sites and the available sites considered are
dependent by each model as described below.
Used Sites
Used sites were defined by historical and newly collected aerial survey and telemetry
location data from in and surrounding the WSA. The location data that define the used
sites for estimating and evaluating the fit of each resource selection model are outlined in
Tables A2-1 through A2-4.
Final Report 52
Table A2-1. Bighorn sheep winter location data used in the resource selection models.
Information Type Year Source N
Population Surveys Ungulate Inventory
Database Kootenay Region 1980-1998 Ministry of Environment 294
Winter Aerial Survey Observations
Kootenay Region 2008 Ministry of Environment 299
Game Management Unit 4-23B Moose
Stratified Random Block Survey 2008 Aurora Wildlife Research 3
Lodgepole and Flathead River Moose
Stratified Random Block Survey 2007 Aurora Wildlife Research 3
2001-03-Bighorn Sheep aerial census-East
Kootenay-Cranbrook-Ministry of Water,
Land, and Air Protection 2001-2003 Ministry of Environment 72
Elk Valley Coal Corporation - Coal
Mountain Operations 2007 Elk Valley Coal 1
Winter Observations Ungulate Inventory
Database Kootenay Region 1979 - 1996 Ministry of Environment 358
Total 1,030
Table A2-2. Mountain goat winter location data used in the resource selection models.
Aerial Survey Observation 2002-2007 Elk Valley Coal Corporation 23
Aerial Survey Observation 2008 LGL Limited 42
Winter Survey Observations Ungulate
Inventory Database Kootenay Region 1979-2005 Ministry of Environment 23
Total 88
Final Report 53
Table A2-3. Elk winter location data used in the fitting the resource selection model.
Lodgepole and Flathead River Moose Stratified Aurora Wildlife
Random Block Survey 2007 Research 4
Game Management Unit 4-23B Moose Stratified Aurora Wildlife
Winter Observations Ungulate Inventory Database Ministry of
Kootenay Region 1984-2000 Environment 592
Elk Valley Coal
Survey Observation 1999-2007 Corporation 23
Elk Valley Coal Corporation - Coal Mountain
Operations 1982-1995 Elk Valley Coal 1,327
Total 2,062
Table A2-4. Moose winter location data used in the resource selection model.
Lodgepole and Flathead River Moose Stratified Aurora Wildlife
Game Management Unit 4-23B Moose Stratified Aurora Wildlife
Ministry of
GPS Collared Moose Locations 2002-2003 Environment 7,638
Elk Valley Coal
Survey Observation 1999-2007 Corporation 74
Winter Observations Ungulate Inventory Database Ministry of

Kootenay Region 1980-1996 Environment 87
Total 8,052
As indicated in section 4.0, there is much historic wildlife location data available in and
adjacent to the WSA; however, many of the location data were collected prior to the use
of Global Positioning Systems (GPS) in studies and were inputted using North American
Datum 1927 (NAD 27). This indicates two potential problems with the older location
data. The first is the accuracy of the actual location. While standards were used in
recording locations on paper maps, there is a potential for error when transcribing the
data to a digital standard.
Final Report 54
Another potential error with the older datasets is described in the Ungulate Inventory
Database for the Kootenay Region where it is documented the UTM’s were assumed to
be in NAD 27 and were adjusted to NAD 83. It is possible that some of the data may
already have been in NAD 83 prior to adjustment. When reviewing separate datasets of
the same wildlife location data (in SPI it is possible to obtain original format of the data
with the SPI format) it became apparent there is a shift of locations between datasets. The
difference is believed to be from the adjustment to NAD 83 from NAD 27. In order to be
consistent when older location data was included, only data from the provincial wildlife
telemetry or survey observation datasets for the Kootenay Region was used.
Available Sites
In developing the winter ungulate habitat models, available sites defined by random
points were generated for each analysis. Random points were generated spatially for
winter models using the Hawth’s Tool © 2002-2006, ArcGIS 9.2 extension within the
Mist Mountain WSA.
Available sites in the mountain goat analysis were defined by 15,000 random points
generated with the WSA. In the analysis of moose and elk resource selection, it was
assumed that snow depths at elevations above 1800 m would restrict habitat use in the
WSA (based on 2008 winter snow tracking survey data). Available sites were thus
defined by 15,000 random points generated in the WSA below 1801 m.
The study area extents for the bighorn sheep model is greater than the other models, with
two strata developed given the bimodal differences in habitat use by sheep in the eastern
and western portions of the study area. In addition, given the differences of habitat use
between strata, the study area was expanded to capture additional locations to provide a
better fit to the models. For each stratum, a set of 5,000 random points were generated to
represent available sites...
Covariates
Model covariates were generated based on previous modelling projects for ungulate
species and those variables consistently showing application in resource selection models
(Keim and Lele 2006; Lele and Keim 2006; Keim and Lele 2007). Each covariate is a
grid/raster dataset (25 m) with a surface covering the study area(s). A covariate will have
either a continuous surface or a binary surface of one and zeros.
The covariates used for fitting elk and moose winter resource selection models included a
higher number of vegetation criteria in addition to biophysical and anthropogenic than
bighorn sheep or mountain goat models (Table A2-5).
Table A2-5. Covariates used in the fitting of moose and elk winter resource selection
models.
Covariate Name Data Type
DEM Elevation (metres above sea level) Continuous
DEM Slope (degrees) Continuous
Distance to Slopes 42-65 degrees (DEM ET 42) Continuous
Final Report 55

DEM Slope Steepness = sine (slope) Continuous
DEM Transformed aspect = sine (aspect + 225) Continuous
DEM Slope position created from DEM using a 375 by 750 m rectangle for nearest
neighbourhood analysis resulting in 10 classes of topography Continuous
DEM Heat Load Index (McCune and Keon 2002) Continuous
Elevation less than 1500 metres above sea level Binary
VRI log <10yrs = 1 means an logged area less than 10 years old, 0 if not Binary
VRI log 10-40 yrs = 1 means the area was logged less than 41 years and greater than 9
years, 0 if not Binary
VRI Nonforest descriptors = 1 if it’s a feature listed below, 0 if not Binary

Mixedwood, Reclaimed Mine, Cultivated Fields, Meadow, Open Range, Swamp, NP
Burns, NP Brush, Sedge Fens Binary
VRI leading species = 1 if the below list is the leading tree species in the stand, 0 if not Binary
Douglas-fir, Western Larch, and Lodgepole Pine Binary
VRI Conifer Tree Density Continuous
VRI Deciduous Tree Density > 0.1 Binary
VRI Crown closure proportion= 1 if the proportion is greater than 50%, 0 if not Binary
VRI Open areas - no trees = 1 if no trees but still natural, 0 if not Binary
TRIM distance to water = the distance to water including lakes, rivers, streams, and
wetlands Continuous
Anthropogenic disturbances = 0 if identified as one, 1 if not Continuous

binary mined area = 0 if identified as one, 1 if not Continuous
TRIM distance to high-use roads Continuous
TRIM distance to medium-use roads Continuous
TRIM distance to low use roads Continuous
Structural Stages: Dwarf Shrub, Forb Dominated, Herbaceous, Sparse, Grass, Low
Shrub, Tall Shrub, Mature Forest, Pole Sapling, Young Forest, Old Growth Forest. Binary
Final Report 56
The covariates used for fitting the bighorn sheep resource selection model used only the
biophysical indicators and the mountain sheep model only used DEM ET 42 and DEM
Heat Load Index as covariates for fitting the model (Table A2-6). This is not surprising
given the importance of escape terrain, visibility for predator detection, and warm south
facing slopes having lower snow depths or being snow free earlier in winter.
Table A2-6. Covariates used in the fitting of bighorn sheep winter resource selection
models.
DEM ET45 = Distance to slopes that are 45-60 degrees Continuous
DEM ET42= Distance to slopes that are 42-60 degrees Continuous
DEM ET35= Distance to slopes that are 35-60 degrees Continuous
DEM Elevation (metres above sea level) Continuous
DEM Slope (degrees) Continuous
DEM Slope Steepness = sine (slope) Continuous
DEM Transformed aspect = sine (aspect + 225) Continuous
DEM Slope position created from DEM using a 375 by 750 m
rectangle for nearest neighbourhood analysis resulting in 10
classes of topography Continuous
DEM Heat Load Index (McCune and Keon 2002) Continuous
Statistical Models
Two statistical models, both applicable to the use / available study design (Manly et al.
2002, Keating and Cherry 2004, Lele and Keim 2006), were employed in the analysis of
the data. The first model, the exponential form of the RSF is the most common modeling
approach for estimating the relative probability of resource selection by animals. The
second, the Logistic RSPF, was recently identified as an alternative approach for
estimating the probability of resource selection by animals.
The Logistic RSPF model takes the form:
exp( x )
 ( x;  ) 
1  exp( x )
The exponential RSF model takes the form:
 ( x;  )  exp(   )
Model selection analysis was conducted in a forward model selection procedure wherein
Bayesian information criterion (BIC) values were contrasted among each model
(Burnham and Anderson 2002). The parameter estimates (β) and the standard errors for
Final Report 57
the final models selected are provided in (Table A2-7). All covariates are significantly
different from zero.
Table A2-7. The estimated coefficients (β) and the standard errors (SE) for the model
covariates used in each of the exponential RSF and the Logistic RSPF.
Logistic RSPF Exponential RSF
Winter Moose Covariates
Β SE Β SE
Intercept -2.47 1.13e-2 - -
Conifer Density -4.82 0.12 -4.33 4.01e-2
(Conifer Density) ^2 7.10 0.28 6.04 0.01
Heat Load Index 2.26 0.01 1.59 6.69e-3
Slope^2 -6.47e-4 2.88e-9 -5.22e-4 9.25e-10
-3
Structural Stage: Grass -2.37 9.10e -2.19 7.91e-03
Logged (10-40 years) 1.93 0.01 1.00 9.07e-04
-3
Deciduous Density > 0.1 1.15 3.38e 0.72 9.18e-04
Structural Stages: Low Shrub
0.94 5.28e-3 0.38 1.11e-03
+ Tall Shrub
Logistic RSPF Exponential RSF
Winter Elk Covariates
Β SE Β SE
Intercept -4.20 0.09 - -
Conifer Density -1.88 0.10 -1.42 0.05
Heat Load Index 2.94 0.16 2.08 6.40e-2
Structural Stage: Grass 2.69 0.42 1.08 1.7e-3
Douglas Fir Leading 1.26 0.06 0.76 0.01
-2
Deciduous Density > 0.1 0.37 3.71e 0.20 1.40e-2
Elevation less than 1500 m 1.54 2.06e-2 0.13 8.28e-3
East Winter Bighorn Sheep Logistic RSPF Exponential RSF

Covariates Β SE Β SE
Intercept -20.14 5.96 - -
ET45/100 -0.13 6.43e-4 -0.08 2.60e-4
Elevation/100 1.20 0.05 1.11 0.03
(Elevation/100)^2 -0.03 2.95e-5 -0.02 1.93e-5
Heat Load Index 1.12 0.05 1.07 4.21e-2
Slopes: 25-50 degrees 0.44 1.46e-2 0.46 0.01
West Winter Bighorn Logistic RSPF Exponential RSF
Final Report 58
Sheep Covariates Β SE Β SE
Intercept -3.56 3.62e-1 - -
ET35/100 -0.25 3.71e-4 -0.22 2.17e-4
Elevation/100 -0.01 3.14e-7 -0.01 2.28e-7
Transformed Aspect 0.37 4.03e-3 0.35 3.65e-3
Logistic RSPF (from Lele and
Winter Mountain Goat Keim, 2006)
Covariates
Β SE
Intercept -4.990 0.09
ET42 -0.019 4.00e-4
Exp(Heat Load Index) 2.166 0.06
In Table A2-8, the BIC value (Burnham and Anderson 2002) for the fitted exponential
RSF and the fitted Logistic RSPF models are provided.
Table A2-8. Log-likelihood values for best fit multiple covariate models. A model with a
larger log-likelihood value is considered to provide a better fit.
Model Log-likelihood value
Winter Moose Exponential RSF: 4640.53
Winter Moose Logistic RSPF: 4820.15*
Winter Elk Exponential RSF: 543.68
Winter Elk Logistic RSPF: 563.54*
Winter East Bighorn Sheep Exponential RSF: 295.91
Winter East Bighorn Sheep Logistic RSPF: 307.82*
Winter West Bighorn Sheep Exponential RSF: 650.87
Winter West Bighorn Sheep Logistic RSPF: 672.59*
*indicates the model with the best log-likelihood value
The Logistic RSPF model provides a better descriptor of the data for all models, under
assumptions of the BIC.
Model Fit
To illustrate the fit of each resource selection model, the proportion of used observations
and the proportion of available observations was tabulated for each of 10 equal-interval
classes from each model (with class widths normally equal to 0.1). The mid-point of each
model class was used to identify and label each interval. A bar graph illustrates the
proportion of used observations and the proportion of available observations by resource
selection class. The bar plot details the distribution of resource use and resource
availability across the study area as predicted by the resource selection model for each
species. The level of selection for a particular model bin increases as the ratio of the used
Final Report 59
proportion to the available proportion increases. Expectation is that higher probability

resource selection classes (those classes having midpoint values nearer 1.0) would have
proportionately more used observations than available observations and vice-versa for
lower probability resource selection classes (those classes having midpoint values nearer
0.0).
Moose Model Fit

The fit of the moose resource selection model to the data used to create the model, is
shown in Figure A2-1. The figure indicates that the proportion of used locations is
increasingly greater than random expectation (or the available distribution) as resource
selection probability class increases (in trend). The model thus has a strong fit with the
data used to derive the resource selection function. The moose GPS collar locations were
collected from moose distributed in the southern extent of the WSA (primarily in the
Lodgepole and northern Flathead River drainages).
Figure A2-1. Fit of the winter moose resource selection model in the Mist Mountain Wildlife Study
Area. Shown is the distribution of moose GPS telemetry locations relative to random
expectation given the area of equal-interval probability classes.
Final Report 60
The fit of the moose resource selection model to independent moose survey data (winter
season), is shown in Figure A2-2. The figure indicates that the proportion of used
locations is increasingly greater than random expectation (or the available distribution) as
resource selection, probability class increases (in trend). The model thus has a strong fit
with the independent survey data from the Mist Mountain WSA. Based on these data the
model does a reasonable job at predicting resource selection for moose across the
geographic extent of the WSA.
Figure A2-2. Fit of the winter moose resource selection model in the Mist Mountain Wildlife Study
Area. Shown is the distribution of moose aerial survey locations relative to random
expectation given the area of equal-interval probability classes.
Elk Model Fit
The fit of the elk resource selection model to the data used to create the model, is shown
in Figure A2-3. The figure indicates that the proportion of used locations is increasingly
greater than random expectation (or the available distribution) as resource selection
probability class increases (in trend). The model thus has a strong fit with the data used to
derive the resource selection function.
Final Report 61
Figure A2-3. Fit of the winter elk resource selection model in the Mist Mountain Wildlife Study Area.
Shown is the distribution of elk aerial survey locations relative to random expectation
given the area of equal-interval probability classes.
The fit of the elk resource selection model to independent telemetry data (historical
winter season data) collected in the northern half of the Mist Mountain WSA, is shown in
Figure A2-4. The figure indicates that the proportion of used locations is increasingly
greater than random expectation (or the available distribution) as resource selection,
probability class increases (in trend). The model thus has a strong fit with the
independent elk telemetry data. Based on these data the model does a reasonable job at
predicting resource selection for elk utilizing both reclaimed mine site and natural
resource types in the WSA.
Final Report 62
Figure A2-4. Fit of the elk resource selection model in the Mist Mountain Wildlife Study Area.
Shown is the distribution of elk radio telemetry locations relative to random expectation
given the area of equal-interval probability classes.
Bighorn Sheep Model Fit

Two separate winter bighorn sheep resource selection models were developed: one for a
stratum located on the eastern extent of the WSA and a second for a stratum on the
western extent of the WSA. Detailed below is the fit for each bighorn sheep model.
West Stratum: The fit of the bighorn sheep resource selection model to the data used to
create the model is shown in Figure A2-5. The figure indicates that the proportion of
used locations is increasingly greater than random expectation (or the available
distribution) as resource selection probability class increases (in trend). The model thus
has a strong fit with the data used to derive the resource selection function. As discussed
earlier, the selection probabilities were scaled as an index of habitat quality as a final step
in this model given measurement error associated with the used observations.
Final Report 63
Figure A2-5. Fit of the bighorn sheep resource selection model in East Kootenay - West Stratum
Area. Shown is the distribution of winter bighorn sheep survey and telemetry locations
relative to random expectation given the area of equal-interval probability classes.
East Stratum: The fit of the bighorn sheep resource selection model to the data used to
create the model is shown in Figure A2-6. The figure indicates that the proportion of
used locations is increasingly greater than random expectation (or the available
distribution) as resource selection probability class increases (in trend). The model thus
has a strong fit with the data used to derive the resource selection function. As discussed
earlier, the selection probabilities were scaled as an index of habitat quality as a final step
in this model given measurement error associated with the used observations.
Final Report 64
Figure A2-6. Fit of the bighorn sheep resource selection model in East Kootenay - East Stratum
Area. Shown is the distribution of winter bighorn sheep survey and telemetry locations
relative to random expectation given the area of equal-interval probability classes.
Mountain Goat Model Fit

The fit of the mountain goat resource selection model to independent aerial survey data
collected in the Mist Mountain WSA, is shown in Figure A2-7. The figure indicates that
the proportion of used locations is increasingly greater than random expectation (or the
available distribution) as resource selection, probability class increases (in trend). The
model thus has a strong fit with the independent mountain goat survey data. Of note for
the mountain goat model is that the sample of observed mountain goat observations for
the WSA is small (N=88) and the measurement error is large (upwards of 100 m or more)
relative to model accuracy (+/- 25 m).
Final Report 65
Figure A2-7. Fit of the mountain goat resource selection model in the Mist Mountain Wildlife Study
Area. Shown is the distribution of winter mountain goat aerial survey locations relative
to random expectation given the area of equal-interval probability classes.
Furbearer Habitat Suitability Index Model

Generally, wildlife habitat models are developed by using a knowledge-based approach
or an empirical approach (Johnson and Gillingham 2004). A knowledge-based approach
develops assumptions and parameters using existing literature, expert opinion, and if
available local knowledge and aboriginal traditional knowledge. The information is
synthesised into wildlife habitat accounts to develop a suite of assumptions to best
correlate life-history and habitat requirements with each attribute of the
ecosystem/vegetation/land classification(s) (Johnson and Gillingham 2004; RISC 1999).
For each attribute a wildlife habitat suitability rating is derived. A Habitat Suitability
Index model uses an equation to estimate the relative value of the habitat based on the
rating developed for each attribute to generate a rating for each combination in the
dataset. Ratings can be generated using additional criteria such as season, elevation, or
broad ecosystem class. Finally, the ratings represent a relative habitat value for the WSA
for those criteria (RISC 1999).
A furbearer winter habitat model was developed to provide strategic level information on
the range of potential high value winter habitats in the WSA. An expert knowledge model
Final Report 66
based on a Habitat Suitability Index model developed for marten in the Foothills Model
Forests was used for the WSA (Takats et al. 1999). This model was selected because the
forests in the two study areas have some similarity in species distribution and biophysical
features. In addition, the model was selected because of the model variables focus on tree
height, canopy closure, coniferous stand density, and the proportion of spruce and fir in
the stands. It supports model outcomes that are based on stand structure rather than
ecosystem unit (Buskirk and Powell 1994; Lofroth 1993; and Mowat 2002). Given the
primary digital ecosystem inventory for the WSA was VRI, the model could still provide
outcomes with some rigour.
The HSI model formula used to estimate furbearer habitat value was based on the criteria
of Takats et al. 1999 where:
HSI=S4*(S1*S2*S3*S5)1/2 where
S1 = the optimal canopy closure for the marten is assumed to be ≥ 31% but ≤
70%.
S2 = suitable habitat for marten contains greater than 50% spruce + fir.
S3 = the mean canopy height must be > 5 m before a stand will be suitable.
S4 = this means a stand must be > 5% coniferous before a stand can be
considered suitable.
S5= Structural Stages of Mature, Old, and Riparian features are of higher value
for marten and furbearers than Sparse, Young Forest, and Pole Sapling
features.
The model outcomes were used to evaluate habitat use by other furbearers due to the
model focus on stand structure than ecosystem type allowed for the consideration of other
furbearers and their prey. Furbearers for this model include mustelids, canids, or felids
reported during the winter ground surveys.
Model evaluation was based on the frequency of furbearers recorded during ground
surveys in each habitat class in February 2008. A use/availability model evaluation was
used to statistical evaluate whether a habitat class was being selected or avoided based on
Manly et al.( 2002) study design; however it is based on a Chi Square statistic and does
not include a fit of the data. Use was defined by the frequency of observations by habitat
class, and availability was defined as the area of each habitat class found within 1000 m
of each ground transect surveyed in February 2008 by LGL Limited.
The model results indicate a statistical significance for habitat selection by furbearers in
class 1 and 2 habitats (high and moderate values), and avoidance of class 4 habitats (nil to
very low value) by furbearers in the WSA (Manly et al. 2002; Table A2-9).
Final Report 67
Table A2-9.Use and availability results from furbearer winter observations with the furbearer HSI
model developed for the Mist Mountain Wildlife Study Area.
HSI Class Area (ha) % Total Area Expected Observed (observed - Overall
expected)2 /exp significance
(P<0.05)
1 1,706.07 14.52 119.51 177 27.66
2 860.74 7.33 60.293 98 23.58
3 4,386.03 37.33 307.23 268 5.01
4 4,796.26 40.82 335.97 280 9.32
Total 11,749.10 100.00 823 823 65.57 Y
Expected True Confidence Upper Lower Significance Trend
Proportion Proportion interval (P<0.05)
0.15 0.22 0.06 0.27 0.16 Y Selection

0.07 0.12 0.03 0.15 0.09 Y Selection
0.37 0.33 0.04 0.36 0.29 N Proportion
0.41 0.34 0.04 0.38 0.30 Y Avoidance
Avian Predicted Species Richness Habitat Model

Vegetation Resources Inventory (VRI) data were used to develop a map of predicted
songbird species richness for the Mist Mountain project area. The map was based on a 4-
class rating system of high, medium, low, or nil, with high indicating that the VRI
polygon has high predicted species richness and nil has no predicted species richness
(because the polygon is of little to no value to birds). Each polygon of the VRI dataset
was assessed for its potential species richness based in part on the results of the 2008
spring bird surveys and in part on our knowledge of songbird richness as it relates to
general forest cover types.
To rate each polygon using the 4-class system, the primary cover type of each polygon
was extracted to assess if the polygon was vegetated, non-vegetated, or disturbed. A
rating of nil was applied to all non-vegetated and disturbed (e.g., mines, roads, urban
settlements) polygons, and to all polygons for which data were not available (i.e., no
coding existed in the VRI database).
For all vegetated polygons, the following rules were applied to determine a rating of high,
medium, or low:
1. A rating of high was applied to mixed forests at low elevations. This included
deciduous leading mixed and coniferous leading mixed forests. Mixed forest
refers to those polygons containing both coniferous and deciduous tree
species. Preston et al. (2005) identified a relationship between increasing
species richness and increasing hardwood presence, with species richness
highest when hardwood species represented between 40 – 60% of the stand.
To assign a potential richness rating of high to a polygon, we used an upper
value of 70% hardwood representation for polygons dominated by hardwoods.
A rating of moderate diversity potential was applied to Polygons with 70 –
Final Report 68
100% hardwood representation. When polygons were dominated by conifers,

a hardwood component of 40 – 60% was used to assign a rating of high.
2. Conifer stands with a hardwood component of at least 10% were assigned a
rating of moderate.
3. A rating of moderate was applied to mixed deciduous stands at low to mid-
elevations.
4. A rating of moderate was applied to mixed coniferous forests at low to mid-
elevations.
5. A rating of moderate was applied to pure deciduous (i.e., 100%) or deciduous-
dominated stands (i.e., stands with > 80% deciduous content).
6. A rating of moderate was applied to shrub (i.e., Salix spp.) dominated
polygons.
7. A rating of low was applied to high elevation mixed coniferous and coniferous
stands containing few (i.e., < 2) tree species.
8. A rating of low was applied to all polygons dominated by Pinus spp.
9. A rating of low was applied to all polygons assigned as alpine forest.
Once all polygons were rated, a map was produced and the ratings scheme evaluated
against the attribute data in the VRI database to ensure congruency between the VRI data
and the mapping. Adjustments to polygon ratings were made where necessary.
Appendix 3. Habitat preferences and distribution of commonly found bird species

located in the WSA
For detailed information on the point-count surveys please see ‘LGL Mist Mountain
Songbirds Spring Survey June 2008.xls’ Excel spreadsheet in the Appendix 3 folder on
the report CD.
The following species are included in
Appendix 3:
 Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus
 Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata
 MacGillivray’s Warbler Oporornis tolmiei
 Townsend’s Warbler Dendroica townsendii
 Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus
 Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus
 Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula
 American Robin Turdus migratorius
 Wilson’s Warbler Wilsonia pusillus
Final Report 69
 Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis

 Hammond’s Flycatcher Empidonax hammondii
 Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa
 Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis
 Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius
 Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina
 Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus
Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus
The Warbling Vireo, with 189 detections, was the most abundant and widespread species
throughout the survey area. It was detected in 5 of the 7 subzones (Figure A3-1A) and
was absent only from the ESSFwmw and ESSFdkw subzones which received very
minimal coverage (n = 1 and 5 point-counts, respectively); it undoubtedly occurs in all
subzones within the survey area. It was the most abundant species detected in both the
IDFun and ICHmk1 subzones, and was the second most numerous species in the MSdk.
It was relatively less common in the ESSFdk1 and ESSFwm subzones, indicating that the
bulk of the population occurred at lower elevations. This species was typical of mixed
forests throughout the WSA, with 57% of detections coming from this habitat type
(Figure A3-1B). Pure coniferous and deciduous forests also harboured this species, but in
much lower numbers than mixed forests. The preference for mixed forests is likely the
most important factor in explaining its lower abundance at higher elevations where pure
coniferous forests dominate the landscape. Detections of Warbling Vireos in non-forested
habitats (shrubs, clearcuts) are not typical of the primary habitat occupied by this species
during the breeding season and, as a result, produced very few detections.
1.4 120
A B
1.2
100
No. of Detections per PC
1
No. of Detections
80
0.8
60
0.6
40
0.4
20
0.2
0 0
IDFun ICHmk1 MSdk ESSFw m ESSFdk1 SGM SGC SGD RIP SH CC OTH
Subzone Habitat
Figure A3-1.Abundance of Warbling Vireo by biogeoclimatic subzone [A] and habitat type
[B]. SGM=second-growth deciduous forest; SGC=second-growth coniferous
forest; SGD=second-growth deciduous forest; RIP=riparian forest; SH=shrubs;
CC=clearcuts; OTH=other habitats (unspecified).
Final Report 70
Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata

A total of 155 detections of Yellow-rumped Warblers were made during the survey period,
making it one of the most abundant species within the WSA. It was detected in all 7 subzones that
were sampled, including the 5 subzones with extensive coverage (Figure A3-2A), and was the
most abundant species in the MSdk and ESSFwmw. It was also among the most common species
in the IDFun and ESSFdk1. Somewhat lower numbers were encountered in the ICHmk1 and
ESSFwm, but the species was still appreciably numerous in those areas as well. Along with
Warbling Vireo, the Yellow-rumped Warbler had one of the broadest distributions within the
WSA but, unlike that species, was equally abundant (if not more abundant) in middle and upper
elevations than along the valley bottoms. The Yellow-rumped Warbler was closely associated
with coniferous forested habitats throughout the survey area, with 55% of detections in pure
coniferous forest and 30% of detections in mixed forests (Figure A3-2B). Occasional birds were
detected in non-forested habitats, such as in shrubs or clearcuts, but these do not represent
preferred nesting sites and these individuals would not be expected to breed in such habitats.
1 A 90 B
0.9 80
0.8
70
0.7
No. of Detections 60
0.6
50
0.5
40
0.4
0.3
30
0.2 20
0.1 10
0 0
IDFun ICHmk1 MSdk ESSFw m ESSFdk1 SGC SGM CC SGD RIP SH OTH
Subzone Habitat
Figure A3-2. Abundance of Yellow-rumped Warbler by biogeoclimatic subzone [A] and

habitat type [B]. SGC=second-growth coniferous forest; SGM=second-growth
deciduous forest; CC=clearcuts; SGD=second-growth deciduous forest;
RIP=riparian forest; SH=shrubs; OTH=other habitats (unspecified).
MacGillivray’s Warbler Oporornis tolmiei
MacGillivray’s Warblers were common throughout the entire WSA and were detected on 148
occasions during the survey period. It was detected in six of the seven subzones sampled and was
missed only in the ESSFwmw which was sampled only once; it is expected in all subzones of the
WSA. It was found to be common in all subzones sample, with the highest densities present in the
valley bottoms (IDFun, ICHmk1) (Figure A3-3A). The lowest densities were found in the MSdk,
although even here it was detected at a rate of 0.38 birds per point-count. This species is
characteristic of brushy habitats, such as forest edges and shrubby riparian area, and was found to
be widespread in these habitats throughout the WSA. It also occurs commonly in forested habitats
(Figure A3-3B), but only in areas with a well-developed shrub layer in the understory. It prefers
mixed forests to purely coniferous or deciduous forests, but was found regularly in all three forest
types in the WSA. It was one of the more common species associated with brushy early-seral
habitats such as regenerating clearcuts and young forest.
Final Report 71
0.8 120
A B
0.7
100
0.6
No. of Detections
80
0.5
0.4 60
0.3
40
0.2
20
0.1
0 0
IDFun ICHmk1 MSdk ESSFw m ESSFdk1 SGM SGC SGD SH RIP CC OTH
Subzone Habitat
Figure A3-3. Abundance of MacGillivray’s Warbler by biogeoclimatic subzone [A] and

habitat type [B]. SGM=second-growth mixed forest; SGC=second-growth
coniferous forest; SGD=second-growth deciduous forest; SH=shrubs;
RIP=riparian forest; CC=clearcuts; OTH=other habitats (unspecified).
Townsend’s Warbler Dendroica townsendii
This species, along with Yellow-rumped Warbler, dominated the arboreal songbird fauna in high-
elevation coniferous forests throughout the WSA. A total of 125 detections of Townsend’s
Warblers were made, with 59% of the detections in the ESSF zone that dominated the high
elevations (Figure A3-4A); lower-elevation subzones, such as IDFun, ICHmk1, and MSdk,
produced relatively fewer detections of Townsend’s Warblers. It was the most abundant species
in the ESSFdk1 and the second most abundant species in the ESSFwm. Populations at lower
elevations were less extensive, but the species is still considered common throughout all parts of
the WSA. Despite its abundance on the landscape, Townsend’s Warblers were detected in only
two habitat types during the entire coarse of the study: second-growth coniferous forests (75% of
detections) and second-growth mixed forests (25% of detections) (Figure A3-4B). This is an
unusually strong habitat association and underscores the importance of coniferous trees to this
species. It completely avoided open and shrubby habitats and deciduous woods in the WSA,
although it can often be found in these habitats outside of the breeding season.
1 A 100 B
0.9 90
0.8 80
No. of Detections
0.7 70
0.6 60
0.5 50
0.4 40
0.3 30
0.2 20
0.1 10
0 0
IDFun ICHmk1 MSdk ESSFw m ESSFdk1 SGC SGM
Subzone Habitat
Figure A3-4. Abundance of Townsend’s Warbler by biogeoclimatic subzone [A] and habitat
type [B]. SGC=second-growth coniferous forest; SGM=second-growth mixed
forest.
Final Report 72
Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus

Pine Siskins were found abundantly throughout the WSA and were detected in all 7 BEC
subzones. This was the most commonly encountered resident (i.e., present year-round) species
over the course of the surveys; all species with higher abundances were short-distance or
neotropical migrants that were present in the WSA only during the breeding season. It was found
to be most numerous in the ICHmk1, MSdk, and IDFun subzones and was relatively less
common in the higher-elevation habitats of the ESSFwm and ESSFdk1 (Figure A3-5A). This
species was found to be strongly associated with forested habitats, with second-growth mixed and
coniferous forests accounting for 80% of all detections for which a habitat was recorded (birds
that were recorded as fly-overs, and which did not land within the count radius, were not assigned
a habitat association) (Figure A3-5B).
0.7 A 30
B
0.6 25
0.5
No. of Detections
20
0.4
15
0.3
10
0.2
0.1 5
0 0
IDFun ICHmk1 MSdk ESSFw m ESSFdk1 SGM SGC SGD WET CC DIS SH OTH
Subzone Habitat
Figure A3-5. Abundance of Pine Siskin by biogeoclimatic subzone [A] and habitat type [B].
SGM= second-growth mixed forest; SGC=second-growth mixed forest;
SGD=second-growth deciduous forest; WET=wetland; CC=clearcuts;
DIS=disturbed areas; SH=shrubs; OTH=other habitats (unspecified).
Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus

With 119 detections, the Swainson’s Thrush was the sixth most abundant species detected during
the survey period. It was most abundant in the ICHmk1 subzone, where it was the second most
abundant species and was detected at a rate of 0.73 birds per point-count (Figure A3-6A). The
detection rate in other subzones was noticeably lower, particularly in the high elevation ESSSF
forests and the drier, warmer forests of the IDFun, although it was reasonably common in the
MSdk subzone (0.45 detections per point-count). Swainson’s Thrushes were closely associated
with forested habitats throughout the WSA and were especially common in mixed forests (Figure
A3-6B). Approximately half of the detections of this species were from such mixed forest
habitats, with another 25% in purely coniferous forests. Its presence in other habitat types was
more marginal, with a few birds occurring in habitats such as clearcuts, deciduous woods, and
shrubby areas. Its preference for mixed forests likely explains its abundance in the ICHmk1,
where such habitats are dominant throughout the subzone.
Final Report 73
0.8 A 70 B
0.7 60
0.6
50
No. of Detections
0.5
40
0.4
30
0.3
20
0.2
0.1
10
0 0
IDFun ICHmk1 MSdk ESSFw m ESSFdk1 SGM SGC DIS SGD CC RIP SH OTH
Subzone Habitat
Figure A3-6. Abundance of Swainson’s Thrush by biogeoclimatic subzone [A] and habitat
type [B]. SGM= second-growth mixed forest; SGC=second-growth mixed
forest; DIS=disturbed habitats; SGD=second-growth deciduous forest;
CC=clearcuts; RIP=riparian forest; SH=shrubs; OTH=other habitats
(unspecified).
Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula
Ruby-crowned Kinglets were rather uniformly distributed throughout the entire WSA, with high
densities occurring in low, middle, and high elevation habitats (Figure A3-7A). Detection rates
ranged from 0.3 birds per point-count in the ICHmk1 to 0.55 birds per point-count in the IDFun.
Like Townsend’s Warbler and Yellow-rumped Warbler, this species showed a close affiliation
with coniferous and mixed forest habitats, and these two habitat types accounted for virtually all
of the 102 detections of Ruby-crowned Kinglets during the survey (with slightly higher numbers
detected in coniferous forests) (Figure A3-7B). Along with Dark-eyed Junco, Yellow-rumped
Warbler, and Chipping Sparrow, it was one of the few species that was regularly associated with
impoverished avian habitats such as homogeneous stands of Lodgepole Pine.
0.6 A 60 B
0.5 50
No. of Detections
0.4 40
0.3 30
0.2 20
0.1 10
0 0
IDFun ICHmk1 MSdk ESSFw m ESSFdk1 SGC SGM OTH
Subzone Habitat
Figure A3-7. Abundance of Ruby-crowned Kinglet by biogeoclimatic subzone [A] and

habitat type [B]. SGC=second-growth mixed forest; SGM=second-growth
mixed forest; OTH=other habitats (unspecified).
American Robin Turdus migratorius
This species is common in virtually all habitats of the region, including throughout the entire
WSA. It was most abundant at lower elevations in the IDFun and ICHmk1, likely benefiting from
the high habitat complexity in these habitats. It was progressively less abundant at higher
elevations (Figure A3-8A), with the lowest densities (0.10 birds per point-count) recorded in the
ESSFdk1. Mixed forest habitats supported the highest numbers of American Robins, with
Final Report 74
coniferous forests also used by many birds (Figure A3-8B). The number of birds recorded in
disturbed habitats was noticeably higher than most other species and reflected the ease of which
this species takes advantage of human-associated habitat features (agricultural areas, urban and
suburban development, roads, etc.). The prevalence of these human-associated habitat features in
the valley bottoms is likely at least partially responsible for the relatively large number of
American Robins detected at these lower elevations.
0.8 A 45 B
0.7 40
0.6 35
No. of Detections
30
0.5
25
0.4
20
0.3
15
0.2
10
0.1 5
0 0
IDFun ICHmk1 MSdk ESSFwm ESSFdk1 SGM SGC DIS RIP CC SGD OTH
Subzone Habitat
Figure A3-8. Abundance of American Robin by biogeoclimatic subzone [A] and habitat type
[B]. SGM=second-growth mixed forest; SGC=second-growth coniferous
forest; DIS=disturbed areas; RIP=riparian forests; CC=clearcuts;
SGD=second-growth deciduous forests; OTH=other habitats (unspecified).
Wilson’s Warbler Wilsonia pusillus
Wilson’s Warblers were abundant at higher elevations within the WSA, and were the most
common species in the ESSFwm subzone, but were noticeably less common at lower elevations
and were even absent from the IDFun (Figure A3-9A). Both the ICHmk1 and MSdk subzones
occur directly below the ESSF zone and likely experience some influence from this zone,
particularly at the higher elevations. This ESSF influence near the upper boundaries of these
subzones likely accounts for most of the Wilson’s Warblers detected there. The Wilson’s Warbler
was strongly associated with brushy habitats throughout the WSA, including coniferous and
mixed forests with a well-developed shrub layer in the understory (Figure A3-9B). It was one of
the most characteristic species of brushy habitats at higher elevations during this survey.
0.8 A 60 B
0.7
50
0.6
N o. of D etections
40
0.5
0.4 30
0.3
20
0.2
10
0.1
0 0
IDFun ICHmk1 MSdk ESSFw m ESSFdk1 SGC SGM SH CC OTH
Subzone Habitat
Figure A3-9. Abundance of Wilson’s Warbler by biogeoclimatic subzone [A] and habitat
type [B]. SGC=second-growth coniferous forest; SGM=second-growth
mixed forest; SH=shrubs; CC=clearcuts; OTH=other habitats (unspecified).
Final Report 75
Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis

Dark-eyed Juncos were common and widespread throughout all subzones of the WSA with the
exception of the ESSFwmw, which was sampled only once. The highest densities were recorded
in the IDFun subzone, where 0.67 birds were detected per point-count (Figure A3-10A). It was
otherwise generally common in the rest of the subzones, from valley bottoms to the montane
coniferous forests of the ESSF. Away from the IDFun, detection rates ranged from 0.26 birds per
point-count in the ICHmk1 to 0.41 birds per point-count in the ESSFwm. Dark-eyed Juncos were
strongly associated with forested habitats that were largely or completely composed of coniferous
species (Figure A3-10B), and was one of only a few species that were common in stands of
Lodgepole Pine. Along with American Robin, this species was one of the most characteristic
birds of disturbed sites throughout the WSA, particularly new and regenerating clearcuts.
0.7
A 35
B
0.6 30
0.5 25
No. of Detections
0.4 20
0.3 15
0.2 10
0.1 5
0
0
IDFun ICHmk1 MSdk ESSFw m ESSFdk1 SGC SGM CC DIS SGD OTH
Subzone Habitat
Figure A3-10. Abundance of Dark-eyed Junco by biogeoclimatic subzone [A] and habitat
type [B]. SGC=second-growth coniferous forest; SGM=second-growth
mixed forest; CC=clearcuts; DIS=disturbed habitats; SGD=second-growth
deciduous forests; OTH=other habitats (unspecified).
Hammond’s Flycatcher Empidonax hammondii
Hammond’s Flycatcher was strongly associated with lower elevations within the WSA and was
among the most abundant species in the ICHmk1 subzone (0.71 detections per point-count)
(Figure A3-11A). It was also common within the IDFun, but its abundance decreases rapidly with
increasing elevation. For example, only 0.19 birds were detected per point-count in the MSdk,
which is the subzone that occurs directly above the IDFun. This species was decidedly rare in the
ESSF subzones, and was completely absent from the well-sampled ESSFdk1. A strong preference
for mixed forests with a considerable deciduous component likely accounts for its scarcity in the
ESSF, where the forests are almost entirely purely coniferous. Approximately 77% of all
detections of Hammond’s Flycatcher within the WSA were made in mixed forests (including
riparian forests, which are typically mixed) (Figure A3-11B). Much smaller numbers were
detected in purely coniferous or deciduous forests. Often occurred alongside the similar and
closely-related Dusky Flycatcher, but that species tended to prefer more open, brushy habitats and
avoided the forests preferred by Hammond’s Flycatcher.
Final Report 76
0.8 A 70 B
0.7
60
0.6
No. of Detections
50
0.5
40
0.4
30
0.3
20
0.2
10
0.1
0
0 SGM SGD SGC RIP OTH
IDFun ICHmk1 MSdk ESSFw m ESSFdk1
Subzone
Habitat
Figure A3-11. Abundance of Hammond’s Flycatcher by biogeoclimatic subzone [A] and

habitat type [B]. SGM=second-growth mixed forest; SGD=second-growth
deciduous forest; SGC=second-growth coniferous forest; RIP=riparian
forests; OTH=other habitats (unspecified).
Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa
The Golden-crowned Kinglet was among a suite of species (which included Townsend’s Warbler,
Yellow-rumped Warbler, and Ruby-crowned Kinglet) that showed a strong preference for
coniferous forests throughout the WSA. It was detected in 6 of the 7 subzones that were surveyed,
including the ESSFwmw and ESSFdkw that received only minimal coverage, and was absent
only from the IDFun (although it is likely present in that subzone as well but was not detected).
Its abundance at lower elevations was noticeably less than in the ESSF subzones, with only 0.11
and 0.26 birds detected per point-count in the MSdk and ICHmk1, respectively, versus 0.3-0.41
birds in the ESSF subzones (Figure A3-12A). This greater abundance in the ESSF is likely tied to
the greater coverage of coniferous forests at those elevations. Habitat data illustrates a strong
preference for pure coniferous forests (Figure A3-12B), and the species was not detected in any
habitats that were not either completely or partially composed of coniferous trees.
0.45
A 60 B
0.4
50
0.35
No. of Detections
0.3 40
0.25
30
0.2
0.15 20
0.1
10
0.05
0 0
IDFun ICHmk1 MSdk ESSFw m ESSFdk1 SGC SGM
Subzone Habitat
Figure A3-12. Abundance of Golden-crowned Kinglet by biogeoclimatic subzone [A] and

habitat type [B]. SGC=second-growth coniferous forest; SGM=second-
growth mixed forest.
Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis
Living up to its name, the Northern Waterthrush was found to be strongly associated with low-
elevation riparian habitats (Figure A3-13A; Figure A3-13B). Although small to moderate
numbers occurred throughout the higher elevations of the WSA, the highest densities were
recorded in the valley-bottom habitats of the IDFun and ICHmk1 subzones (Figure A3-13A).
Final Report 77
Open, brushy habitats were heavily preferred by this species wherever it occurred, and it was
rarely encountered within forested habitats where there was not a well-developed shrub layer and
extensive openings in the canopy. Its preference for riparian conditions was evident wherever it
was encountered, even along small brushy streamsides in the montane habitats of the ESSF.
0.4 20
A 18
B
0.35
16
No. of Detections per Pc
0.3
No. of Detections
14
0.25 12
0.2 10
8
0.15
6
0.1
4
0.05 2
0 0
IDFun ICHmk1 MSdk ESSFw m ESSFdk1 RIP SGM SGC SH SGD WET OTH
Subzone Habitat
Figure A3-13. Abundance of Northern Waterthrush by biogeoclimatic subzone [A] and

habitat type [B]. RIP=riparian forests; SGM=second-growth mixed forest;
SGC=second-growth coniferous forest; SH=shrubs; SGD=second-growth
deciduous forest; WET=wetlands; OTH=other habitats (unspecified).
Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius
Varied Thrush occurred throughout the WSA but was much more abundant at higher elevations
(ESSFwm, ESSFdk1) than at lower elevations (IDFun, ICHmk1, MSdk) (Figure A3-14A). This is
likely due to its strong preference for coniferous forest habitats, as was demonstrated by the
habitat data that was collected for this species (Figure A3-14B). It appeared to shun pine stands in
favour of mixed spruce and fir forests, which likely explains its scarcity in the MSdk subzone
(where Lodgepole Pine stands are extensive). Its habitat preferences were similar to species such
as Townsend’s Warbler and Golden-crowned Kinglet and occurred throughout most of the same
areas as those two species.
0.5
A 35
B
0.45
30
0.4
25
No. of Detections
0.35
0.3
20
0.25
15
0.2
0.15 10
0.1
5
0.05
0 0
IDFun ICHmk1 MSdk ESSFw m ESSFdk1 SGC SGM DIS
Subzone Habitat
Figure A3-14. Abundance of Varied Thrush by biogeoclimatic subzone [A] and habitat type
[B]. SGC=second-growth coniferous forest; SGM=second-growth mixed
forest; DIS=disturbed habitats.
Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina
Chipping Sparrows were strongly associated with low elevations throughout the WSA, with the
greatest abundances in the IDFun and MSdk subzones that occupied the lower and middle
Final Report 78
elevations of much of the Project Area (Figure A3-15A). Although it was present in the ICHmk1,
its abundance in this subzone was not as great as that in the other low-elevation subzones. It was
very scarce at higher elevations within the ESSF zone. It showed a strong preference for dry
forests and openings wherever it occurred, and readily adapted to disturbed areas such as
roadsides and clearcuts (Figure A3-15B). It was among a suite of species that was strongly
associated with coniferous forests, and was one of few species that occurred in moderate to large
numbers in the extensive Lodgepole Pine forests of the MSdk subzone.
0.5
A 14
B
0.45
12
0.4
0.35 10
No. of Detections
0.3
8
0.25
6
0.2
0.15 4
0.1
2
0.05
0 0
IDFun ICHmk1 MSdk ESSFw m ESSFdk1 SGC DIS SGM CC SH SGD OTH
Subzone Habitat
Figure A3-15. Abundance of Chipping Sparrow by biogeoclimatic subzone [A] and habitat
type [B]. SGC=second-growth coniferous forest; DIS=disturbed areas;
SGM=second-growth mixed forest; CC=clearcuts; SH=shrubs;
SGD=second-growth deciduous forest; OTH=other habitats (unspecified).
Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus
The Hermit Thrush is one of the most characteristic species of montane coniferous forests
throughout BC and was found to be a common component of the ESSF zone within the WSA.
With the exception of a single bird recorded in the MSdk, all detections of this species were from
the ESSF subzones (ESSFwm, ESSFdk1) (Figure A3-16A). This was the strongest association
with montane habitats of any species with a moderate to large number of detections; other species
that were strongly associated with these habitats were recorded relatively few times. Similarly, it
showed the strongest preference for coniferous forests of any of the more common species, with
92% of all observations being recorded in pure coniferous forests (Figure A3-16B).
0.45
A 40
B
0.4 35
0.35
30
No. of Detections
0.3
25
0.25
20
0.2
15
0.15
10
0.1
0.05 5
0 0
IDFun ICHmk1 MSdk ESSFw m ESSFdk1 SGC DIS CC
Subzone Habitat
Figure A3-16. Abundance of Hermit Thrush by biogeoclimatic subzone [A] and habitat type
[B]. SGC=second-growth coniferous forest; DIS=disturbed areas;
CC=clearcuts.
Final Report 79
Appendix 4. Number of bird detections and the number of species detected in each
habitat type for specific biogeoclimatic zones that occur in the Mist
Mountain Project Area.
80
IDFun Detections Species
70
Number of Detections / Species
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
SGM SGC RIP RL DIS OTH
Habitat Type
Figure A4-1.Number of bird detections and the number of species detected in each habitat
within the IDFun subzone. SGM=second-growth mixed forest; SGC=second-
growth coniferous forest; RIP=riparian forest; RL=rivers and lakes;
DIS=disturbed habitats; OTH=other habitats (unspecified).
500
ICHmk1 Detections Species
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
SGM SGC SGD SH RIP CC DIS WET RL OTH
Habitat Type
Figure A4-2. Number of bird detections and the number of species detected in each habitat
within the ICHmk1 subzone. SGM=second-growth mixed forest;
SGC=second-growth coniferous forest; RIP=riparian forest; RL=rivers and
lakes; DIS=disturbed habitats; OTH=other habitats (unspecified).
Final Report 80
160
MSdk Detections Species
Number of Detections / Species 140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
SGC SGM DIS RIP SGD CC SH WET OTH
Habitat Type
within the MSdk subzone. SGC=second-growth coniferous forest;
SGM=second-growth mixed forest; DIS=disturbed habitats; RIP=riparian
habitats; SGD=second-growth deciduous habitats; CC=clearcuts; SH=shrubs;
WET=wetlands; OTH=other habitats (unspecified).
250
ESSFwm Detections Species

200
150
100
50
0
SGC SGM CC DIS RIP OTH
Habitat Type
within the ESSFwm subzone. SGC=second-growth coniferous forest;
SGM=second-growth mixed forest; CC=clearcuts; DIS=disturbed habitats;
RIP=riparian habitats; OTH=other habitats (unspecified).
Final Report 81
250
ESSFdk1 Detections Species
200
150
100
50
0
SGC SGM SH CC DIS RIP OTH
Habitat Type
within the ESSFdk1 subzone. SGC=second-growth coniferous forest;
SGM=second-growth mixed forest; SH=shrubs; CC=clearcuts; DIS=disturbed
habitats; RIP=riparian habitats; OTH=other habitats (unspecified).
Final Report 82
MAPS
Map 1. The Mist Mountain Wildlife Study Area and Mist Mountain Coalbed Gas Project Area located in southeast British
Columbia.
Final Report 83
Map 2. The Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification Zones (BEC) and Ecosection boundaries delineated for the study area.
Final Report 84
Map 3. Wildlife Management Units located near the Wildlife Study Area.
Final Report 85
Map 4. The distribution of ground transects surveyed during wildlife winter ground surveys conducted in February 2008.
Final Report 86
Map 5. The distribution of wildlife sightings observed during aerial reconnaissance surveys flown in February 2008.
Final Report 87
Map 6. The distribution of mountain goat observations recorded during a mountain goat aerial survey in the Mist Mountain
Wildlife Study Area.
Final Report 88
Map 7. Distribution of songbird point-count stations in the Wildlife Study Area.
Final Report 89
Map 8. The winter moose RSPF estimated habitat values distributed in the Wildlife Study Area.
Final Report 90
Map 9. The winter elk RSPF habitat model values distributed in the Wildlife Study Area.
Final Report 91
Map 10. The mountain goat RSPF estimated winter habitat model values distributed in the Wildlife Study Area.
Final Report 92
Map 11. The winter bighorn sheep RSPF habitat model values distributed in the Wildlife Study Area.
Final Report 93
Map 12. The winter furbearer estimated habitat model values distributed in the Wildlife Study Area.
Final Report 94
Map 13. Potential songbird species richness estimated for the Wildlife Study Area.
Final Report 95

Baseline Assessment Mist Mountain Report 25 March 2009

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Baseline Assessment Mist Mountain Report 25 March 2009

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Matrix Project 7307 LGL Project EA3014

Mist Mountain Coalbed Gas Project

Final Report for 2008 Studies

FINAL REPORT iii

2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

3. Derive models to predict the availability of habitat for selected wildlife

3.1 Biophysical Description

BEC Zone Area Percentage (%) of

3.2 Anthropogenic Disturbance

Disturbance Type Source1 Status Area (ha)

4 Wildlife Historical Information Review

4.1 Review of Census Information / Data

4.1.3 Mountain Goat

4.1.4 Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep

Herd/subpopulation Date Survey Total West East Lamb:ewe Comments

4.2 Review of Wildlife Habitat Information

4.2.3 Mountain Goat

4.2.4 Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep

5 WILDLIFE FIELD SURVEYS

5.2.1 Aerial Reconnaissance Survey Methods

5.2.2 Winter Ground Transect Methods

5.2.3 Mountain Goat Aerial Survey Methods

5.2.4 Songbird Point-Count Methods

5.3 Field Survey Results

5.3.1 Aerial Reconnaissance Survey Results

5.3.2 Winter Ground Transect Results

Snowshoe Hare, 27%

Weasal, 13% Red Squirrel, 21%

5.3.3 Mountain Goat Aerial Survey Results

5.3.4 Songbird Point-count Survey Results

ESSFwmw 13 28 1 13.0* . 6 (7) 10 (18) . . . 1 (1) . . 13 (26)

Species No. No. per PC Species No. No. per PC

Table 20.Bird species and number of detections in the ESSFdk1 subzone.

Table 21.Bird species and number of detections in the ESSFdkw subzone.

6.1 Moose Winter Habitat

6.2 Elk Winter Habitat

6.3 Mountain Goat Winter Habitat

6.4 Bighorn Sheep Winter Habitat

*Range of historic winter habitat use in the WSA.

6.5 Furbearer Winter Habitat

6.6 Avian Richness Model

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

Mowat, G. 2002. Measuring carnivore distribution to monitor changes in forest

Consulting Services for Tembec – Western Canada Division, Cranbrook, BC. 68

Resource Selection Models

Resource Selection Analysis

Winter Observations Ungulate Inventory Database Ministry of

Covariate Name Data Type

VRI Nonforest descriptors = 1 if it’s a feature listed below, 0 if not Binary

Douglas-fir, Western Larch, and Lodgepole Pine Binary

VRI Conifer Tree Density Continuous

VRI Deciduous Tree Density > 0.1 Binary

Anthropogenic disturbances = 0 if identified as one, 1 if not Continuous

East Winter Bighorn Sheep Logistic RSPF Exponential RSF

West Winter Bighorn Logistic RSPF Exponential RSF

proportion to the available proportion increases. Expectation is that higher probability

Moose Model Fit

Bighorn Sheep Model Fit

Mountain Goat Model Fit

Furbearer Habitat Suitability Index Model

0.15 0.22 0.06 0.27 0.16 Y Selection

Avian Predicted Species Richness Habitat Model