Information Request 23.2 23 Wildlife: Moose Density References: EIS Guidelines - Section 2.6.1.8, p. 37 (PDF 42) EIS Main Report - Section 2.3, p. 2.1 (PDF 162) - Section 5.7.2.1.2, p. 5.108 (PDF 433) - Section 5.7.2.1.3, p. 5.110 (PDF 435) - Section 5.7.2.1.4, p. 5.111 (PDF 436) - Section 5.7.2.1.6, p. 5.112 (PDF 437) - Section 6.2.7.2, p. 6.82 (PDF 588) Contributing IRs: PC-1 Rationale: The EIS states that the study site straddles wildlife management units (WMU) 21A and 21B. However, the moose density of 0.332 moose/km 2 that is used in the EIS is from WMU 22A. There is no indication why WMU 22A is used to determine moose density for the SSA and if WMU 22A is representative of the Project site. Current moose populations in both WMUs exceed targeted densities (0-0.25 moose/km 2 ). The EIS also states that WMU 33 encompasses Pukaskwa National Park and areas to the south along the Lake Superior shoreline. Estimates of current moose density for Pukaskwa National Park may be more accurate using a portion of the park (WMU 33P) and separating it from WMU33. Information Request: Justify the use of moose density data from WMU 22A as appropriate for the Project area. In providing the justification, indicate the factors that were used (e.g. habitat, topography) to determine that WMU 22A was suitable and representative of the SSA and whether harvest statistics were available to help determine moose populations. Provide justification for combining WMU 33 and WMU 33P to determine moose density in the coastal zone and estimate moose density for Pukaskwa National Park using WMU 33P. SCI RESPONSE Moose densities are presented and discussed in detail in SID No. 24 (Terrestrial Baseline Environment Program), as well as in SID No. 26 (Assessment of Impacts on Woodland Caribou). WMUs are not discussed in SID No. 24, but moose densities by WMU are discussed in SID No. 26 due to the potential implications of predator-prey dynamics (i.e., where moose are at a high density, the increased wolf numbers can depress caribou populations). Moose densities for WMU22A are not presented nor discussed in SID No. 26 (see Figure 6, p. 15 and Table 1, p. 39) since that WMU22A is outside the RSA, approximately 100 km east of the project. Section 5 of the Main EIS Report also correctly refers to WMU 21A, not WMU22A. Any reference elsewhere in the EIS supporting documentation to WMU 22A instead of WMU 21B is a typographical error.
As discussed in SID No. 26 (pp. 13-15, 39-40), moose are managed by the OMNR on the WMU level since moose populations respond in large part to landscape-level changes in habitat availability (e.g. browse from cutovers and fires), predation (including hunting), climate, and other factors. Moose densities for WMUs are derived from OMNR's aerial inventory program (McLaren 2006; Oswald 1997). Moose harvest reporting is not compulsory in Ontario, although there is a voluntary post-card survey for hunters. Moose densities were only widely available at the WMU level, but relative moose densities were also provided by the OMNR at the sub-wmu level area for 21A and 21B (Figure 23.2-1 below). Relative moose density represents the expected number of moose observed on moose survey plots during aerial surveys; in 21A 0-4 moose for low density plots and 5 or more on high density plots. However, it must be recognized that the intent of OMNR's aerial survey design is not to predict the number of moose in small areas, but to determine a statistically valid estimate for the number of moose in the WMU as a whole. Figure 23.2-1 (below) indicates that moose densities in the RSA are expected to be relatively high (>5 per plot), which is typical of much of the WMU, particularly the coastal and western portion. The use of WMU density estimates to characterize the RSA is coarse but considered appropriate for placing predator-prey dynamics in context. Figure 23.2-1. Moose density (moose/km 2 ) for wildlife management units (WMUs) adjacent to the proposed Project.
An aerial survey for moose and other larger mammals was flown in 2008 using an approximately 1000 m transect survey width to provide an index of abundance for the LSA. Field observations from on-the ground fieldwork provided supplemental information. In order to provide more recent and standardized density estimates for the LSA, an additional aerial survey was conducted by Northern Bioscience on February 14, 2013, with OMNR s participation. Four contiguous 2.5 x 10 km standard moose plots were flown over the Project site using a 500 m transect width (Figure 23.2-2). With the exception of the non-random location of the survey plots, standard OMNR survey methodology was followed to enable comparison with OMNR survey data (McLaren 2006). A total of two moose were observed on the four blocks; one moose was located on the Project site and one to the northeast of Bamoose Lake. This provides a destiny estimate of 0.02 moose/km 2, indicating low current use of the Project site and adjacent landscape. Both moose were within 1 km of the Pic River, which is consistent with greater browse availability on the finer-textured, more productive soils near the Pic River. These data provide a standardized baseline for future comparison of potential Project effects at the SSA level. WMU 33P is within the boundaries of WMU 33 (Figure 23.2-1) and moose densities from WMU 33 were primarily used in SID No. 26 since they allow consistent comparison across WMUs. In addition they may better reflect the moose density in this portion of the coastal range than do numbers exclusively within Pukaskwa National Park (PNP) where hunting is limited and roads and logging are absent. Moose densities (1993-1999) for the Greater Pukaskwa Ecosystem, which includes the Project site, were presented on p. 39 of SID No. 26. Moose density in the Greater Pukaskwa Ecosystem was 0.192 moose/km 2, compared to 0.332 moose/km 2 currently in WMU33. The boundaries of the Greater Pukaskwa Ecosystem are presented in Appendix 2 of SID No. 26 and are also shown below on Figure 23.2-1. A previously unavailable moose monitoring factsheet (Drake 2011) recently provided by Parks Canada confirms lower moose densities in the park (0.12 moose/km 2 in 2011) compared to the WMU33. Although more accurate, this new density estimate does not significantly change our understanding of the predator-prey dynamics in the RSA or potential impacts of the Project on moose in the RSA or LSA. Moose densities are relatively low near the Superior coastline in the park, despite the absence of hunting. Literature Cited Drake, C. 2011. Pukaskwa Moose Monitoring Factsheet. Internal Report, Parks Canada Agency. 3 pp. McLaren, M.. (Revised by). 2006. Standards and guidelines for moose population inventory in Ontario. Southern Science and Information Technical Report Number SSI #121, 46p. Oswald, K. 1997. Moose aerial observation manual. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Northeast Science & Technology. 95p.
Figure 23.2-2: February 2013 large mammal aerial survey of Project site and adjacent landscape.
Information Request 23.3 Wildlife: Bat Surveys References: EIS Guidelines - Section 2.6.1.8, p. 37 (PDF 42) EIS Main Report - Table 2.3-1, p. 2.4 (PDF 165) - Table 5.7-3 p. 5.109 (PDF 434) - Table 6.1-4, p. 6.15 (PDF 521) - Section 5.7.2.1.8, p. 5.113 (PDF 438) - Section 5.8.2.2 p. 5.121 (PDF 446) Contributing IRs: MNR-T-4 Rationale: The EIS indicates that a number of bat species are potentially present in the study area, although no specific monitoring studies were conducted at the study site as part of the baseline studies. The EIS also notes that fall acoustic monitoring of bats at a nearby site confirmed the presence of three bat species, two of which are designated as at risk under the provincial Endangered Species Act. While bat species are identified as not being present in the SSA, no surveys were specifically undertaken for bats. Information Request: Provide a rationale for not conducting baseline surveys on bats. SCI RESPONSE POTENTIAL SPECIES AND STATUS As explained below, targeted bat surveys were not completed due to the lack of hibernacula, inefficiency of other survey techniques, and the low risk that the Project components pose to breeding, foraging, or migrating bats. In addition, as noted below recent survey data were available at a relatively nearby location. Six bat species are expected to occur in the study area (Table 23.3-1) based on historical records and surveys completed nearby. Two of these species (little brown myotis and northern myotis) were observed during acoustic surveys at the proposed Coldwell wind energy study area (Hatch Energy 2008), located approximately 15 km west of the Project, and have recently (February 2012) been assessed by COSEWIC and COSSARO as Endangered due to catastrophic populations declines caused by White Nose Syndrome (COSEWIC 2012). Table 23.3-1. Bat species potentially occurring in the Project SSA or LSA. Common Name Scientific Name Winter Coldwell COSEWIC Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus Hibernate Y END Northern myotis Myotis septentrionalis Hibernate Y END Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus Hibernate Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans Migrate - 1 -
Red bat Lasiurus borealis Migrate Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus Migrate Y BAT HABITAT Bat Significant Wildlife Habitat, as identified in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) includes the following: bat hibernacula; bat maternity colonies, and bat migratory stopover areas. Criteria for confirming bat migratory stopover areas are not currently defined in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. In the absence of criteria, bat migratory stopover areas cannot currently be evaluated (OMNR 2011). Habitat use by targeted bat species potentially present in the study area is provided below to provide context for whether bat surveys were considered necessary. Hibernacula Little brown myotis, northern myotis, and big brown bat typically hibernate in abandoned mine shafts or caves (Naughton 2012). No caves were observed or previously documented and there are no records of abandoned mine shafts in the Local Study Area (Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines Abandoned Mines Information System). Little brown myotis migrate up to 1000 km between summer ranges and winter hibernacula (Naughton 2012), so their presence during the summer does not indicate the presence of hibernacula in the LSA. Movement of approximately 50 km from summer range and hibernacula have also been documented for northern myotis (Naughton 2012) and 80 km from big brown bat (OMNR 2010b). Maternity Colonies During the summer, nursing females (little brown myotis, northern myotis, big brown bat) aggregate in colonies dozens to thousands of individuals (depending on the species) in warm locations usually in or around buildings, but also tree cavities, exfoliating bark, cracks and crevices in cliffs. Northern myotis, which typically have smaller colonies, switch maternity roosts every several days, carrying their non-volant young with them (Naughton 2012). Hoary, red, and silver-haired bats roost hidden in the foliage high up in large-diameter (>25 cm) deciduous trees and are very difficult to detect (OMNR 2000; Naughton 2012). Other Habitat During the summer, non-nursing bats roost singly or in groups during the day and at night when not foraging. Depending on the species, roost sites can include hidden amongst foliage in trees, under boulders, in tree cavities, caves, rock crevices, and buildings. Some of the cliff/talus habitat or very mature trees may provide some opportunities for diurnal roosts. The study area probably provides foraging habitat for bats, particularly over lakes, near shorelines and open areas, dependent on the species. SURVEYS Visual surveys and acoustic monitoring at the entrance to caves and abandoned mines is recommended as the most effective method for confirming the location of bat hibernacula (OMNR 2000, 2011). However there are no caves or mine known in the LSA at which this could be conducted. Both Endangered species of bats may be present in the LSA during the summer, but no hibernacula are present. - 2 -
According to OMNR (2000) sites with candidate maternity roosts are mixedwood or deciduous forests if snag/ cavity tree density is 10 snags per hectare of trees 25 cm diameter breast height (DBH). Field surveys were not conducted to assess large snag tree density. Approximately 4800 ha of the LSA has at least 10% canopy closure of white birch or trembling aspen, of which only less than 500 ha will be cleared for the Project. OMNR's Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide is most often applied in heavily developed landscapes of southern Ontario where mature forest habitats threatened by development; however, forest habitat is not limiting in northern Ontario where the Project is located. OMNR's Stand and Site guide used for forest management planning in Ontario (OMNR 2010a,b) does not afford protection for maternity colonies nor recommended pre-harvest surveys. No preharvest surveys for bat maternity colonies were conducted by the OMNR on the two large (208 ha, 358 ha) blocks overlapping the LSA that were allocated for harvest during the most recent term of the Big Pic Forest Management Plan. No maternal colonies have been documented in northwestern Ontario in natural habitats (i.e., not buildings)(h. Riddle, pers. comm. 2013). Given the difficulty in detecting maternity colonies, and the abundance of potential roosting trees in the surrounding landscape, no targeted surveys for bat maternity colonies were conducted in the LSA. Acoustic surveys at foraging sites can provide presence/absence data, but distinguishing Myotis species, estimating numbers, and identifying significant habitat are problematic (COSEWIC 2012). POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION The 2011 EIS guidelines required the identification and assessment of potential effects of the Project on wildlife, including bats. Potential impacts can be assessed without field surveys confirming the presence of individual species, given our current understanding of species' habitat preferences, existing habitat conditions in the LSA, and the project components. No impacts are anticipated on hibernacula since there are none present in the SSA or LSA. Potential impacts on maternal colonies are expected to be minor given the small number of the potentially suitable roost trees will be directly impacted by the project footprint. Bat populations in the boreal forest of northern Ontario are presumably adapted to a fire-driven ecosystem and periodically forced to shift locations of maternal colonies due to natural factors. No significant negative impacts are anticipated on foraging habitat for bats. Little brown myotis commonly forage in urban areas (Naughton 2012) so are relatively tolerant of anthropogenic disturbance. Northern myotis forage along roads and trails (Naughton 2012) and are not expected to be negatively impacted by the Project. Hoary bats are also known to forage on insects attracted by streetlights (Naughton 2012). Open areas, engineered ponds, and light sources could in fact potentially benefit foraging bats. Hoary bats and other species are sometimes found dead below wind turbines, communication towers, and power lines, usually during migration (Naughton 2012). Due to the short length of proposed transmission line and its largely north-south orientation, it is not expected to have significant effects on migrating bats and no mitigation is proposed. - 3 -
Literature Cited COSEWIC. 2012 Emergency Assessment Concludes that Three Bat Species are Endangered in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Website available at http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct7/bat_emergency_assessment_press_release_e.cfm Hatch Energy. 2008. Brookfield Power Wind Environmental Screening Report Volume 1 - Main Report Coldwell Wind Energy Project. Kingston, S. Regional Park Ecologist, Ontario Parks, OMNR, Thunder Bay. Personal communication. Naughton, D. 2012. The Natural History of Canadian Mammals. Canadian Museum of Nature and University of Toronto Press, Toronto. 784 pp. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. Fish and Wildlife Branch. October 2000. 151 p. Available at: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/business/fw/publication/mnr_e001285p.html Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2010a. Forest Management Guide for Conserving Biodiversity at the Stand and Site Scales. Queen s Printer for Ontario, Toronto. 211 pp. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2010b. Forest Management Guide for Conserving Biodiversity at the Stand and Site Scales Background and Rationale for Direction. Toronto: Queen s Printer for Ontario. 575 pp. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2011. Bats and Bat Habitats: Guidelines for Wind Power Projects. 2nd ed. Queen's Printer for Ontario. 25 p. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2012. White Nose Syndrome - Threatening Ontario's Bats. Factsheet. 2 p. Available at: www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/.../278529.pdf Riddle, H. A/Science Specialist - Renewable Energy, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough. - 4 -
Information Request 23.4.2 23.4 Avian Species: Nighthawk and Whip-poor-will Surveys References: EIS Guidelines - Section 2.6.1.8, p. 37 (PDF 42) EIS Main Report - Section 6.2.8, p. 6.93 (PDF 599) SID #25 - Sections 5.3.1.4 to 5.3.1.7, p. 38-39 (PDF 43-44) - Table 2, p. 10 (PDF 15) Contributing IRs: MNR-T-22 Rationale: The EIS indicates that 58 ha of potential whip-poor-will and nighthawk habitat is scattered throughout the 5300 ha property (Table 2). The EIS also states that there are no confirmed sightings for the species on the property. However, only one survey was conducted along the existing road corridor and not through potential habitat. Information Request: Justify the methodology used to confirm the absence of nighthawk and whip-poor-will in the SSA and LSA. SCI RESPONSE A survey for Eastern Whip-poor-will and other nocturnal birds was conducted on June 14 2011 along the main north-south access road through the SSA (see SID #25, p. 17) (Figure 1). The survey followed the Whip-poor-will Roadside Survey Protocol (Bird Studies Canada 2011) except that the spacing between stations was reduced to 1 km from 1.6 km. Ten stations were surveyed, five of which were also surveyed between 21:30 and 22:30 to cover the pre-dusk period when Common Nighthawks are most active. The full moon was on June 15 2011. The roadside survey methodology was developed by Bird Studies Canada in cooperation with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. The survey route followed the main property access road. Virtually the entire eastern portion of the SSA is within about 800 m of at least one survey station and within earshot of calling Whippoor-wills, but not necessarily Common Nighthawks. No nocturnal surveys were completed in the western portion of the SSA (Figure 1), due to safety concerns about off-road travel at night. Nesting habitat for these species includes rock barrens with scattered trees, as well as young burns and cutovers (Mills 2007, Sandilands 2007), habitats that are common in the LSA. Figure 1 shows the distribution of rock barren and shallow soil ecosites in the SSA and LSA. Common Nighthawks are common and widespread north of Lake Superior (Sandilands 2007) and quite possibly do nest on the rock barren hilltops within the SSA and LSA. Whip-poor-wills are confined to isolated occurrences north of Lake Superior (Mills 2007), but could occur within the - 1 -
area. The nests of both these species consist of well-hidden scrapes on the ground and are very difficult to find (Mills 2007, Sandilands 2007). In summary, existing surveys do not confirm that Whip-poor-wills and Common Nighthawks are absent in the SSA and LSA. Additional surveys are proposed in 2013 to provide greater spatial coverage. These will include repeating the 2011 roadside survey and using sound recorders to cover the less accessible areas of the SSA. Figure 1: Distribution of Whip-poor-will and Common Nighthawk survey stations on June 14 2011. Rock barren ecosites are shown in red; Ecosite B012 (Black Spruce Jack Pine: Very Shallow Soil) is shown in orange. Data from Forest Resource Inventory provided by MNR. Refer to Banton et al. 2009 for ecosite descriptions. - 2 -
Literature Cited Banton, E., J. Johnson, H. Lee, G. Racey, P. Uhlig, and M. Webster. 2009. Ecosites of Ontario. Operational Draft. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Bird Studies Canada. 2011. Whip-Poor-Will Roadside Survey Participant s Guide. Website: www.birdscanada.org/birdmon/wpwi. Accessed December 2011. Mills, A. 2007. Whip-poor-will. pp. 312-313. In Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Coutourier. Atlas of Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2001-2005. Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature. Toronto. Sandilands, A. 2007. Common Nighthawk. pp. 308-309. In Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Coutourier. Atlas of Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2001-2005. Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature. Toronto. - 3 -
Information Request 23.4.4 23.4 Avian Species: Impacts on Bald Eagles References: EIS Guidelines - Section 2.7.2.6, p. 61 (PDF 66) - Section 2.7.2.7, p. 61 (PDF 66) SID #25 - Section 5.3.1.5, p. 39 (PDF 44) Contributing IRs: MNR-T-23 Rationale: SID #25 indicates that the Project is not expected to affect bald eagles, and also states that winter foraging habitat is rare or absent in the Project area. However, no fall / winter surveys for bald eagles were conducted to substantiate this statement. The Pic River is known to be a feeding area for bald eagles. Given that eagles utilize large areas for foraging and that the Project area is directly adjacent to the Pic River, it is possible that the Project may have an effect on bald eagles. Information Request: Assess the potential impacts of the Project on bald eagles given the use of the Pic River as fall / winter foraging habitat. SCI RESPONSE Bald Eagles are reported to use the Pic River near the Project site for feeding on spawning salmon in the fall, but information on frequency, numbers and timing is unavailable (Ray Tyhuis pers. comm.). The Pic River is within about 400 m of the proposed project footprint at the closest point. Salmon typically spawn in September and October in rivers on the north shore of Lake Superior (Scott and Crossman 1973, pers. obs.) and eagle use of the area presumably peaks during that period if they are feeding on salmon. The ebird (2013) database includes 19 records of Bald Eagle (including several records with multiple birds) near Heron Bay on the Pic River about 12 km south of the Project Site. Dates range from March to May and September to December with a peak of 11 Bald Eagles on October 11 2011 (reported as scavenging a moose carcass ). The only other records in the Regional Study Area are at or near the Marathon town site. Christmas Bird Count data from the town of Marathon were also queried (National Audubon Society 2013). This is a single day count held between Dec 15 and 23 from 1973-1979 and 1986-2011 (Table 1). The count is centred on the junction of Highway 17 and Highway 627 with a radius of 12 km and includes much of the project site and adjacent Pic River (although coverage of the project site is typically limited by poor access). Christmas Bird Count data include no Bald Eagles between 1973 and 1993, small numbers (1 to 4 birds) between 1994 and 2010, and a peak of 9 in 2011 (Table 1). No Bald Eagles were observed during aerial surveys at the Project Site on April 2008, March 20 2009, or February 14 2013. Bald Eagle winter habitat has traditionally included large, ice-free rivers and lakeshores where there are concentrations of fish and waterfowl (Sandilands 2005). Scavenged carcasses and - 1 -
garbage are also typical winter foods. Birds tend to return to the same wintering areas (Sandilands 2005). Bald Eagles are increasingly using garbage dumps in early winter in northern Ontario. Up to 300 Bald Eagles were observed at the Thunder Bay city landfill in December 2012 (Brian Ratcliff, pers. comm.). Bald Eagles were not recorded on the Thunder Bay Christmas Bird Count from 1952 to 1994, but have been present every year since then with a peak of 179 in 2011 (National Audubon Society 2013). The nesting population of Bald Eagles in Ontario has also increased substantially since the mid-1900s (Armstrong 2007). Sources of winter foods in the Local Study Area are limited. Fish, gulls, and waterfowl are present year round at open water on Lake Superior near Marathon and possibly at rapids on the Pic River, but other lakes and streams are typically ice-covered by mid to late November. Other sources of winter foods are less reliable. White-tailed Deer are uncommon in the Regional Study Area (winter-killed deer are an important food source in parts of Ontario; Sandilands 2005). Scavenging for road kill along Highway 17 and the Marathon Dump are other potential food sources. Responses of Bald Eagles to disturbance are well documented. Eagles tend to flush when approached within 300 m by a pedestrian (Sandilands 2005), but are more tolerant of vehicles. If disturbed repeatedly, eagles may leave the area. Stalmaster and Newman (1978) found that eagles were tolerant of moderate levels of human activity (defined as moderate recreational use, roads close to feeding areas) and tolerance level was higher at preferred feeding sites than at lower quality sites. The ability of Bald Eagles to adapt to human disturbance at landfill sites in northern Ontario was noted above where up to 300 Bald Eagles have been observed at the Thunder Bay city landfill (Brian Ratcliff, pers. comm.) in close proximity to continuous traffic and intensive human activity. Buffer zones to protect Bald Eagles from human disturbance during forest management prescribed in OMNR s (2010) Forest Management Guide for Conserving Biodiversity at the Stand and Site Scales include a 400 m zone around active nests. The same distance (400 m) is recommended by Martell (1992) as a buffer around feeding areas to protect Bald Eagles from human disturbance. In conclusion, based on the limited data available, modest but increasing numbers of Bald Eagles are present at Marathon and on the lower Pic River in the fall and early winter. These numbers reflect Ontario s growing Bald Eagle population. Eagles apparently feed on salmon on the Pic River in September and October but data are unavailable. Other winter feeding opportunities include fish and waterfowl on Lake Superior, roadkill, and the Marathon landfill site. The minimum distance between the project site and the nearest likely feeding area on the Pic River (about 400 m) corresponds to recommended buffer zones around winter feeding areas. The Project is unlikely based on the foregoing to have any material impact on Bald Eagles. - 2 -
Table 1. Bald Eagles on Marathon Christmas Bird Count (National Audubon Society 2013). Year Bald Eagles 1973-79 0 1980-85 no count 1986-93 0 1994 2 1995 0 1996 0 1997 2 1998 1 1999 3 2000 0 2001 2 2002 3 2003 4 2004 cw* 2005 1 2006 0 2007 0 2008 4 2009 2 2010 1 2011 9 *Count week; i.e. observed during the week encompassing the count day, but not on the count day Literature Cited Armstrong, E.R. 2007. Bald Eagle. pp. 170-171. in Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, and A.R. Coutourier. Atlas of Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2001-2005. Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature. Toronto. ebird. 2013. ebird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. ebird, Ithaca, New York. Available: http://www.ebird.org. (Accessed: March 6 2013). Martell, M. 1992. Bald Eagle winter management guidelines. Green Bay, WI. United States Fish and Wildlife Service and Wisconsin Adopt and Eagle Program. 14 pp. National Audubon Society. 2013. The Christmas Bird Count Historical Results [Online]. Available http://www.christmasbirdcount.org. (Accessed: March 6 2013). - 3 -
OMNR. 2010. Forest Management Guide for Conserving Biodiversity at the Stand and Site Scales Background and Rationale for Direction. Toronto: Queen s Printer for Ontario. 575 pp. Sandilands, A. 2005. Birds of Ontario: Habitat Requirements, Limiting Factors, and Status. Vol 1. Nonpasserines: Waterfowl through Cranes. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC. 365 p. Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Bulletin 184. Ottawa. Stalmaster, M. V. and J. R. Newman. 1978. Behavioral responses of wintering Bald Eagles to human activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 42:506-513. - 4 -