whatshan project water use plan - bc hydro · pdf filewhatshan project water use plan . ......

Whatshan Project Water Use Plan Whatshan Wildlife Monitoring Implementation Year 5 Reference: WGSMON-3

Whatshan Water Use Plan Monitoring Program:

Wildlife Monitoring

Study Period: 2008-2010

Mandy Kellner and Harry van Oort Kingbird Biological Consultants Ltd. P.O. Box 8617, Revelstoke B.C., V0E 2S2

March 2011

photo: J. Randall

Whatshan Water Use Plan Monitoring Program:

Wildlife Monitoring

Study Period: 2008 – 2010

Mandy Kellner and Harry van OortKingbird Biological Consultants Ltd.

P.O. Box 8617, Revelstoke B.C., V0E 2S2 March, 2011

ii

Summary Water level fluctuations at Whatshan Lake Reservoir are controlled throughout the year by the operations of the hydroelectric power generating plant. These operations are prescribed by the Whatshan Generating Station water license. When implementing the current Water Use Plan (WUP), BC Hydro began a wildlife monitoring program to determine if the new operating regime prescribed in the WUP impacted wildlife. The specific management questions posed by BC Hydro when developing the wildlife monitoring program were: I) “Will changes in reservoir operation impact wildlife species?”, and II) “What is the appropriate indicator species to assess wildlife impacts?”. The second management question was addressed previously by a pilot study at Whatshan in 2006. That study identified the potential for serious negative impacts of reservoir operations on Common Loons (Gavia immer) nesting on Whatshan Lake. This species appeared to have unusually low reproductive success as a direct result of nest flooding caused by the operation of the reservoir. The pilot study proposed Loons as a study species because of the apparent impacts of reservoir operations on nesting success, the number of Loon pairs present, the relative ease of studying Loons, and the likelihood of obtaining useful data in the given time period. In order to address the first management question, a 3-year monitoring program was initiated in 2007 to monitor Loon abundance, document the timing of Loon reproduction, and investigate the impact of water management on Loon nest failure. This report summarizes and concludes this latter wildlife monitoring study. During the 3-year study, there were four to five pairs of Loons present on the reservoir each year, and the average nesting success (number of pairs with young divided by number of territorial pairs) was estimated to be 30% per year. This was an improvement over the 0% success observed in 2006, the single year monitored prior to the implementation of the WUP. Nesting success was lower than the yearly average at control lakes (44%), although the sample at control lakes was small and nesting success highly variable across years, and was lower than nesting success values reported for other locations across Canada. Over three years, fourteen territorial pairs of Loons were monitored and nine nests were located, two of which were successful (22%). Of the successful nests, one was built at shoreline and initiated late in the nesting season after the reservoir had nearly reached full pool. The other successful nest was built on a stable floating substrate. Three unsuccessful nests (33%) appeared to have failed as a result of predation or human disturbance. Four (44%) of the monitored unsuccessful nests were confirmed to have failed due to flooding from reservoir operations. Three of these flooded nests were built at shoreline early in the season before the reservoir reached full pool. The fourth flooded nest was built on a semi-floating platform that became water logged. As a result of the reservoir flooding the Loon nests that were initiated in the early part of the nesting season, successful pairs tended to have initiated nesting on a slightly later date than at control lakes, and at other lakes in BC. The results confirm that reservoir operations do impact wildlife species, resulting in the incidental take of migratory birds, and that the current operating regime may reduce these impacts. Although Loon nests continue to fail due to reservoir operations, the changed timing of full pool under the current WUP results in a generally positive impact on the nesting success of Common Loons, relative to previous water regimes. Prior to the WUP, filling of the reservoir was often later, and continued past the nest-initiation period, presumably flooding out most nesting attempts. Loons at Whatshan began nest-building and incubating during the last week of May, with a notable exception of one nesting attempt that was initiated before May 15. This data on the timing of nesting suggests that filling the reservoir even earlier in the spring, to reach full pool before most birds begin nesting, may further reduce negative impacts on the nesting success of Common Loons. While such a change in the timing of filling may reduce impacts on wildlife, the

Kingbird Biological Consultants Whatshan Loon Monitoring 2008 - 2010 iii

implications of such a scenario on recreation, fisheries, and power generation must be considered. As an alternative to modifying the WUP, the success of a nest on a stable floating substrate in 2009 and the use of an old dock as a nest platform in 2010 (although this nest subsequently failed due to disturbance) suggest that installation of floating platforms may be an effective method for mitigating the impacts of reservoir operations on the reproductive success of Loons. There is ample evidence in the published literature that suggests that nesting platforms can increase nesting success and productivity in Common Loons. We recommend the installation of nesting platforms in appropriate locations on Whatshan Reservoir. We also documented reservoir impacts on Northern Flickers (Colaptes auratus) nesting in cavities that became submerged as the reservoir filled, and suspected but did not confirm flooding of nests of Killdeer (Charadrius vociferous) and Spotted Sandpipers (Actitis macularius). As with Common Loons, the earlier filling of the reservoir under the WUP should have reduced impacts on these species by inundating potential nest sites before nesting can begin. Also as in the case of Loons, filling of the reservoir even earlier in the spring may result in even less potential impact on these other species. However, Canada Geese were recognized as one species that may be negatively impacted by earlier filling of the reservoir. Monitoring the nesting success of these other species that likely are impacted by reservoir operations is recommended. Mitigation recommendations are also provided for cavity nesting birds that are impacted by reservoir operations.

Kingbird Biological Consultants Whatshan Loon Monitoring 2008 - 2010 iv

Table of Contents Summary ................................................................................................................ iii

Table of Contents ......................................................................................................v

List of Figures .......................................................................................................... vi

List of Tables ........................................................................................................... vi

Introduction ..............................................................................................................1

Methods ..................................................................................................................3

Field methods.............................................................................................................................. 3

Data analysis and management.................................................................................................. 4

Results....................................................................................................................5

Reservoir operations ................................................................................................................... 5

Loon monitoring program ............................................................................................................ 6

Discussion .............................................................................................................14

Management questions ............................................................................................................. 14

Reservoir impacts on Loon reproductive success..................................................................... 15

Recommendations ...................................................................................................16

1. Installation of artificial nest platforms ................................................................................... 16

2. Habitat enhancement for cavity nesters............................................................................... 17

3. Assessing impacts to other species ..................................................................................... 17

Conclusions............................................................................................................18

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................18

References.............................................................................................................18

Appendix 1: Guide for aging Common Loon chicks .........................................................20

Appendix 2. Summary of water elevations and observations of nesting Common Loons..........21

Appendix 3: Location data for nests of Common Loons ....................................................24

Appendix 4. Incidental observations of wildlife, 2008 – 2010 .............................................25

Kingbird Biological Consultants Whatshan Loon Monitoring 2008 - 2010 v

List of Figures Figure 1 Whatshan Lake is located in south-eastern British Columbia. This map shows the location of Whatshan Lake and the other lakes with pairs of Loons, visited from 2008 – 2010, and the towns of Revelstoke and Nakusp. ..............................................................................................1

Figure 2. Daily maximum water elevations at Whatshan Lake Reservoir, showing the daily maximum for each year before the WUP was implemented, the average daily level pre-WUP, and the daily maximum by year post-WUP (2007 – 2010). Also shown in red is the minimum daily level required by the current WUP....................................................................................................5

Figure 3. Map showing the approximate location of the five Loon territories (in red) at Whatshan Lake Reservoir..................................................................................................................................1

Figure 4. Incubating Loon.................................................................................................................6

Figure 5. Observed dates of nesting activities and young Loons, plus predicted hatch dates at Whatshan Lake and control lakes, 2008 – 2010. .............................................................................7

Figure 6. Common Loon with one small young in the Flicker Lagoon, Whatshan Lake Reservoir..8

Figure 7. Causes of nest failure included probable human disturbance. .........................................9

Figure 8. A nest with two eggs about to be flooded. Photo: J. Randall......................................... 12

Figure 9. The water levels of Whatshan Lake Reservoir (plotted in black) for 2008, 2009, and 2010. Maximum levels during the nesting period were reached on May 30 2008 (640.79m), Jun 20 2009 (640.849m), and Jun 3 2010 (640.75). The dotted line plots the minimum water elevations required by the Water Use Plan. White dots indicate the first confirmed date of nesting attempts that subsequently failed (a dot may signify more than one nest on that date); black dots indicate the initiation dates for successful nests. .............................................................................1

Figure 10. The natural floating nest platform used successfully to hatch two young in 2009, and unsuccessfully with this one egg shown in 2010, when the egg was destroyed by predators or human disturbance before hatching. ............................................................................................. 16

List of Tables Table 1. Summary details of lakes visited in 2008 – 2010, including Whatshan Lake Reservoir and control lakes. Not all lakes were visited each year................................................................... 4

Table 2. Fates of Loon nests monitored on Whatshan Lake in 2006 (pre-WUP, added for completeness) and from 2008 – 2010. Several pairs made repeat nesting attempts following failure of initial nests. S = success, F = failure. ............................................................................... 8

Table 3. Causes of failure for Loon nests monitored on Whatshan Lake in 2006 (pre-WUP, added for completeness) and from 2008 – 2010. Several pairs made repeat nesting attempts following failure of initial nests. S = successful nest..................................................................................... 10

Table 4. Nest location and success rate of nine nests of Common Loons located on Whatshan Reservoir 2008 – 2010. ................................................................................................................. 10

Table 5. Fates of Loon nests monitored on control lakes from 2008 – 2010. One pair was observed to make a repeat nesting attempt following an initial failure due to a natural rise in water level. S = success, F = failure. Blank cells indicate that the lake was not monitored in that year, because different numbers of lakes were visited in each year...................................................... 11

Table 6. Species confirmed to have lost nests or eggs through “incidental take” due to reservoir operations at Whatshan Lake Reservoir in 2006 (included for completeness) and during this study, 2008 – 2010. ...................................................................................................................... 12

Kingbird Biological Consultants Whatshan Loon Monitoring 2008 - 2010 vi

Kingbird Biological Consultants Whatshan Loon Monitoring 2008 - 2010 1

Introduction Hydroelectric reservoir projects are among the most efficient and clean methods of power generation; however, the extreme yearly water fluctuation caused by some hydroelectric operations may conflict with the needs of recreational users, fisheries, and wildlife. Water use planning for hydro facilities attempts to direct reservoir operations so that social and environmental needs are accommodated with minimal impacts to power generation. Whatshan Lake Reservoir is located in the southern Monashee Mountains of British Columbia (Figure. 1), at the southern end of the interior ‘wet belt’. In winter, these mountains gather a deep snowpack resulting in a considerable spring freshet. The reservoir is approximately 17 km long, and is endowed with two narrows and a convoluted shoreline in places with a number of lagoons and islands. The reservoir supports considerable fish stocks and is valued for its recreational fishery. The southern end of the reservoir is characterized by high levels of shoreline cottage development and is used heavily during the summer months for motorized water sports. Water level fluctuations at the Whatshan Lake Reservoir are controlled throughout the year by the operations of the hydroelectric power generating plant. The operating regime is detailed in the Whatshan Lake Reservoir Water Use Plan (WUP) (BC Hydro 2005). The WUP prescribes that water levels should be maintained at or above:

636.5 m during the winter (2 October to 14 May); 639.1 m elevation from May 15 th to June 14 th,

640.35 m from June 15th to October 1st , and 636.5 m for the remainder of the year.

These target water levels were developed to maximize revenues while benefiting recreational quality and fish populations of the reservoir and minimizing impacts on wildlife. Specifically, the objectives of this WUP, as outlined by the Consultative Committee (BC Hydro 2004) were to:

maximize the recreational quality of the reservoir, maximize the population of fish in the reservoir, maximize the population of rainbow trout in the river downstream of the dam, maximize the power revenues generated by the Whatshan Project, and minimize the impacts on wildlife using the area.

Although this regime was not expected to affect wildlife significantly (BC Hydro 2005), a wildlife monitoring program was recommended to verify this. The Management Questions of the wildlife monitoring study were I) “Will changes in reservoir operation impact wildlife species?”, and II) “What is the appropriate indicator species to assess wildlife impacts?” (BC Hydro 2006).

To address Management Question II, a multi-species pilot study was conducted in Year 1 (van Oort and Kellner 2007). Due to (1) a lack of baseline data on wildlife productivity and behaviour prior to implementation of the WUP, combined with (2) the difficulties of working in an inundated drawdown zone amongst floating logs and hidden stumps, and (3) the request from BC Hydro to develop a volunteer-based monitoring program run with limited financial resources, it was recommended that monitoring a single vulnerable species was most likely to produce scientifically-defensible results that would adequately address the primary management question, Management Question I above. Furthermore, it was recommended that the wildlife monitoring program should investigate the direct impacts of reservoir operations on wildlife productivity (van Oort and Kellner 2007), rather than studying indirect impacts that may manifest via the relationship between wildlife and vegetation, as was proposed in the initial WUP (BC Hydro 2005).

Furthermore, the preliminary work suggested that Common Loons (Gavia immer) nesting in Whatshan Lake Reservoir may have unusually low reproductive success. In 2006, none of the four nesting pairs observed on the reservoir successfully raised young, and it was hypothesized that this deficiency was a direct result of nest mortality caused by unnatural water level fluctuations (van Oort and Kellner 2007). Subsequently, it was suggested that Loons should be monitored on this reservoir, with the specific goal of understanding how reservoir operations impact Loon productivity. Participation in the volunteer-based Canadian Lakes Loon Survey program was suggested. Subsequently, BC Hydro identified a lack of local volunteer resources for a 10-year monitoring program, and a shorter 3-year study run by professional wildlife biologists was approved (BC Hydro 2007). This report summarizes and concludes this latter 3-year wildlife monitoring study which was initiated to answer Management Question I; specifically, to determine if changes in reservoir operations impact Common Loons. It incorporates the information from the two yearly progress reports (van Oort and Kellner 2008, Kellner and van Oort 2009).

Figure 1 Whatshan Lake is located in south-eastern British Columbia. This map shows the location of Whatshan Lake and the other lakes with pairs of Loons, visited from 2008 – 2010, and the towns of Revelstoke and Nakusp.


Methods

Field methods Common Loons were monitored on Whatshan Lake Reservoir from mid-May to late July or early August in 2008, 2009, and 2010 using a boat and two observers (including the boat operator). Monitoring surveys were more frequent at the start of the breeding season (every week) as we were interested in gathering information on the timing of nest initiation. Weather permitting, a small boat was used to slowly navigate around the entire circumference of the reservoir in order to count Loon pairs and to gather nesting data. The weather conditions, date, observers, and the start/end times for each complete survey were recorded. In the event of windy weather conditions, Loon pairs were observed from the shoreline where possible, which allowed us to gather data on some of the Loon pairs. Loons are highly territorial and can be counted easily with a low probability of missing or double-counting pairs, especially just prior to nesting. When a Loon (single or pair) was encountered, a handheld global positioning system (Garmin Map76CSX) was used to record its location on the reservoir. Typically, Loons were encountered at similar locations during each survey within a year, especially early in the season prior to incubation, when Loons localize around nest sites and are seen as pairs. Territory boundaries, based on Loon locations, seemed similar between years. Loon pairs were observed for a period of up to 20 minutes to assess whether they were incubating. Nest building was noted if observed, but can easily be missed as the nest is often constructed of very little material and can be made quickly (i.e., in a day). Nest searches, involving longer observation periods, were conducted when behavior of Loons suggested that a pair might be nesting. Once incubation commenced, Loons were usually seen alone, because the other pair member was incubating the eggs. During incubation, the non-incubating adult would forage over a larger area, making it difficult to determine the nest location if not already known. When Loon pairs were accompanied by their young, we noted: the number of young present and took notes to aid in estimating their age, including the color of their down (black or brown), their size (relative to adults), the extent of the development of their juvenile plumage, and their behavior (McIntyre and Barr 1997; Appendix 1). Several control lakes were also monitored to obtain data on the timing of nest initiation and nesting success for comparison with data from Whatshan. Control lakes were natural (non-regulated) lakes selected for accessibility, elevation (similar to Whatshan), size (small lakes that may support one or two Loon pairs and be easily surveyed), and location (within approximately 100 km of Whatshan Lake, and preferably in the Columbia River system) (Table 1). With the exception of Three Valley and Griffin Lakes in 2010, the control lakes could not be monitored as intensively as Whatshan Lake. Instead, an early survey in mid-May was conducted to check for the presence of Loons. A single brood survey was then conducted in mid-July to mid-August (concurrent with a brood survey at Whatshan), to locate pairs with young. Hatch date and date of nest initiation were estimated retroactively based on the size of the young, using the guidelines for aging Loon chicks from the Canadian Lakes Loon Survey of Bird Studies Canada (Appendix 1). In 2010, Three Valley Lake and Griffin Lake were monitored at the same frequency as Whatshan, to obtain similarly precise data on dates of nest initiation. Incidental observations of other wildlife species were gathered opportunistically while surveying for Loons.


Table 1. Summary details of lakes visited in 2008 – 2010, including Whatshan Lake Reservoir and control lakes. Not all lakes were visited each year.

Survey Name General location

2008 2009 2010

UTM11 X

UTM11 Y

Area (ha)

Elevation (m)

Whatshan Monashees: east side Yes Yes Yes 422080 5545530 1686 640

Mosquito Monashees: north of Whatshan

Yes Yes Yes 424213 5575673 161 720

Summit Selkirks: Hwy 6, east of Nakusp

Yes Yes 454839 5555544 153 759

Three Valley

Monashees: Hwy 1, west of Revelstoke

Yes Yes 395956 5644481 132 520

Box Selkirks: Hwy 6, east of Nakusp

Yes 449000 5563000 70 605

Staubert Selkirks: Hwy 31, west of Trout Lake

Yes Yes 454133 5614818 69 765

Griffin Monashees: Hwy 1, west of Revelstoke

Yes 394118 5647260 39 480

Data analysis and management Data from field notebooks were entered in an Excel spreadsheet after each survey, and field notebooks photocopied. Waypoints were downloaded and saved on computer, and projected in ArcView to check accuracy of the waypoints and associated field notes. The final version of the Excel spreadsheet was submitted to BC Hydro. The complete data set, following the 3rd year of monitoring and approval of the final report by BC Hydro, was submitted to the Province of BC through the (Wildlife Species Inventory submission site), to the Canadian Wildlife Service, and the Canadian Lakes Loon Survey. We examined observations to estimate territory locations, dates of pairing, nest initiation, start of incubation, and estimated hatch. To determine the impacts of reservoir operations on Loon nests, we documented the fate of all known nests as the breeding season progressed and the reservoir filled. To determine at what date nests would no longer be affected by reservoir operations, we obtained data on daily maximum water levels at Whatshan from BC Hydro and determined the date of maximum water elevation. We calculated nesting success per lake per year as the number of Loon pairs observed with young divided by the number of territorial Loon pairs observed in spring.


Results

Reservoir operations The current WUP has resulted in changes in the timing of filling the reservoir, in order to meet minimum levels in the spring. This change resulted in the reservoir filling more quickly in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 than the historical average (Figure. 2). Additionally, minimum winter levels under the WUP are well above the historical average.

Date

01-Apr 01-May 01-Jun 01-Jul 01-Aug 01-Sep

Wat

er e

leva

tion

(m)

634

635

636

637

638

639

640

641

642

WUP minimum elevationElevation 1984 - 2006 (pre-WUP)Elevation 2007 - 2010 (WUP in place)Average elevation 1984 - 2006 (pre-WUP)

Figure 2. Daily maximum water elevations at Whatshan Lake Reservoir, showing the daily maximum for each year before the WUP was implemented, the average daily level pre-WUP, and the daily maximum by year post-WUP (2007 – 2010). Also shown in red is the minimum daily level required by the current WUP.


Loon monitoring program

Loon territories

North End

White Grouse

Flicker Lagoon

Lagoon

South Island

Figure 3. Map showing the approximate location of the five Loon territories (in red) at Whatshan Lake Reservoir.

Annually, Whatshan Lake Reservoir supported four to five Loon territories. In 2008, there were four territories: North End, White Grouse, Lagoon, and South Island. In 2009 and 2010, the small Flicker Lagoon territory became occupied as well (Figure 3), so there were five territories. At the control lakes (shown in Figure 1), Mosquito Lake, Summit Lake, and Three Valley Lakes supported one or two territories each depending on the year, while there was one pair of Loons on each of Summit, Staubert, Griffin, and Box Lakes. Timing of nest initiation and incubation At Whatshan, pairing of Loons usually occurred prior to our first survey in mid-May, although one territory was not clearly occupied by a pair until May 25. Up until this time, many single Loons had been observed on the reservoir. Nest-building, egg-laying, and the start of incubation (Figure. 4) generally began in the last 1½ weeks of May or early June. Documented dates for nest-building ranged from May 24 until June 8 (Figure. 5, Appendix 2, Appendix 3). The earliest observation of incubation was on May 15, 2010, for a pair that nested on a floating dock and was already incubating on our first survey on that date. Generally, incubation was observed starting between May 25 through June 15, with later start dates (June 1 – June 15) for re-nesting attempts.

Figure 4. Incubating Loon.


At control lakes, dates of nest building and starting incubation were slightly earlier than at Whatshan, although observations were limited (Figure 5). One observation of nest-building was made on May 17, one week prior to any observations at Whatshan (May 24 to June 8). Confirmed incubation start dates were from May 11 to May 24, while the earliest incubation date at Whatshan was May 15, and all other incubation start dates at Whatshan were two weeks later, from May 25 to June 15. Additionally, for one control pair for which the actual incubation start date was not documented, a mid-May start of incubation was retrospectively deduced, based on size of young in late summer. We also documented one re-nesting attempt at a control lake on June 3.

Date

01-May 01-Jun 01-Jul 01-Aug 01-Sep

Large young

Small young

Predicted hatch

Incubating

Nest building

Paired

Control

Whatshan

Figure 5. Observed dates of nesting activities and young Loons, plus predicted hatch dates at Whatshan Lake and control lakes, 2008 – 2010. Nesting success Nesting success at Whatshan Lake averaged 30% of pairs successful each year for the three years of this study (Figure 6, Table 2). The yearly success rate was 50% (2/4 established pairs successful) in 2008, 20% (1/5) in 2009, and 20% (1/5) in 2010. Nine nests were located, of which only two were successful at hatching broods. The causes of failure at these nests could not always be determined. Lack of success was due to various reasons: failure to initiate a nest (the North End territory was occupied by a pair each year but no obvious nesting attempt was observed), predation, suspected human disturbance (Figure 7), and flooding due to rising water levels (Table 3). The nine nests were built either on the shoreline, usually out of mud, grass, or moss, or were on natural or artificial floating platforms (Table 4, Appendix 3).


Figure 6. Common Loon with one small young in the Flicker Lagoon, Whatshan Lake Reservoir. Table 2. Fates of Loon nests monitored on Whatshan Lake in 2006 (pre-WUP, added for completeness) and from 2008 – 2010. Several pairs made repeat nesting attempts following failure of initial nests. S = success, F = failure.

Territory Year

2006 2008 2009 2010

North End F F F F

White Grouse F S F F

Flicker - - F F S

Lagoon F F S F S F

South Island F F F F

# successful nests 0 2 1 1

Nesting success (# pairs with young / # territorial pairs monitored)

0% (0/4) 50% (2/4) 20% (1/5) 20% (1/5)


Figure 7. Causes of nest failure included probable human disturbance. Top: Loon nest built on dock in the South Lake, May 15, 2010 (inset) and the nest in June when it had failed due to suspected human disturbance, with one egg broken and the other no longer being incubated. Bottom: the south end of Whatshan Lake, showing the dock used for nesting (arrow) and proximity to boats and other docks.


Table 3. Causes of failure for Loon nests monitored on Whatshan Lake in 2006 (pre-WUP, added for completeness) and from 2008 – 2010. Several pairs made repeat nesting attempts following failure of initial nests. S = successful nest.

Territory Year

2006 2008 2009 2010

North End Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

White Grouse Unknown S Unknown Reservoir operation

Flicker - - Reservoir operation

Reservoir operation

S

Lagoon Reservoir operation

Reservoir operation

S Unknown S Predation

South Island Reservoir operation

Disturbance Unknown Disturbance

# nests known lost due to reservoir operations

2 1 2 1

# nests known lost due to other causes

2 2 4 3

Table 4. Nest location and success rate of nine nests of Common Loons located on Whatshan Reservoir 2008 – 2010.

Nest location Total nests

Number successful

Number failed

Causes of failure

Shoreline 5 1 4 Flooding (3 nests), disturbance (1 nest)

Natural platform 3 1 2 Flooding (1 nest), predation (1 nest)

Artificial platform 1 0 1 Disturbance (1 nest)

Total 9 2 7 Flooding (4 nests), disturbance (2 nests), predation (1 nest)

At the control lakes, the yearly average was 44%, with extremely large variation in success rates and a small sample size. In 2008 the Mosquito Lake pair successfully raised two young (100%, 1/1 pairs successful). In 2009, no young Loons (0%, 0/4) were observed at any of the four control lakes (Mosquito, Summit, Staubert, Three Valley) during the August brood surveys. In 2010, the Three Valley pair successfully raised one young Loon and the Box Lake pair raised two young, while the other four control lakes (Mosquito, Summit, Staubert, Griffin) were unsuccessful (33%, 2/6) (Table 4). The only known cause of failure for nests at control lakes was the natural flooding of the initial 2010 nest at Three Valley Lake, after heavy spring rains. All other failures were due to unknown causes.


Table 5. Fates of Loon nests monitored on control lakes from 2008 – 2010. One pair was observed to make a repeat nesting attempt following an initial failure due to a natural rise in water level. S = success, F = failure. Blank cells indicate that the lake was not monitored in that year, because different numbers of lakes were visited in each year.

Lake Year

2008 2009 2010

Mosquito S F F

Staubert F F

Summit F F

Box F S

Griffin F

Three Valley F F S

# successful nests 1 0 1

Nesting success (# pairs with young / # territorial pairs monitored)

100% (1 / 1)

0 % (0 / 5)

33% (2 / 6)

Water levels and nesting success Over the three year study period, we confirmed the flooding of four nests due to rising water levels from reservoir operations (Figures 8, 9). In 2008, a nest observed on the 24th May built by the Lagoon pair was found to be unstable and waterlogged on 31st May, due to rising water levels causing the log to float. No longer supported from below, the log floated low in the water, leading to flooding of the nest. This pair successfully re-nested and was incubating their second nest by June 6. In 2009, the Flicker Lagoon pair made two nesting attempts; the first nest was located June 1 at the waterline; on June 8 this nest was underwater and a new nest nearby contained two eggs. This second nest was also flooded by June 15. In 2010, the White Grouse nest, believed to have been initiated as early as May 24th, was right at the waterline and saturated with water. We suspect that rising water levels also caused the failure of several of the nests classified as “unknown”. Usually, Loon behaviour suggested incubation, but nests were not located before a pair re-appeared and localized their behaviour elsewhere, suggesting nest failure and the start of re-nesting. Successful nests were generally initiated late in the season, when water levels were nearly at peak, or had peaked. Reservoir operations were also responsible for the confirmed flooding of a cavity nest of a Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus) in 2008. Suspected but not confirmed as flooded were: the same Flicker nest cavity in 2010, and nests of Spotted Sandpipers (Actitis macularius) and possibly Killdeer (Charadrius vociferous). While the Migratory Birds Regulations, under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, strictly prohibit the harming of migratory birds and the disturbance or destruction of their nests and eggs, many are inadvertently destroyed by activities such as electrical generation. This inadvertent destruction is called “incidental take” and is illegal. Table 6 summarizes the occurrences of incidental take that were confirmed at Whatshan Reservoir during the course of this study.


http://lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/C.R.C.-c.1035/index.html

http://lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/M-7.01/index.html

Table 6. Species confirmed to have lost nests or eggs through “incidental take” due to reservoir operations at Whatshan Lake Reservoir in 2006 (included for completeness) and during this study, 2008 – 2010.

Common name Scientific name Date Observation Common Loon Gavia immer 16 June 2006 Nest submerged under rising water Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus 18 June 2006 Nest submerged under rising water Common Loon Gavia immer 24 May 2008 Flooding caused platform and nest to

become waterlogged Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus 31 May 2008 Nest submerged under rising water Common Loon Gavia immer 1 June 2009 Nest submerged under rising water Common Loon Gavia immer 8 June 2009 Nest submerged under rising water Common Loon Gavia immer 13 June 2010 Nest destroyed by rising water, waves

Figure 8. A nest with two eggs about to be flooded. Photo: J. Randall


2010

Date


636

638

640

642

2008


636

638

640

642

Maximum daily water levelW UP m inimum water levelInitiation of successful nestsInitiation of failed nests

2009


Wa

ter

ele

vatio

n (m

)

636

638

640

642

Figure 9. The water levels of Whatshan Lake Reservoir (plotted in black) for 2008, 2009, and 2010. Maximum levels during the nesting period were reached on May 30 2008 (640.79m), Jun 20 2009 (640.849m), and Jun 3 2010 (640.75). The dotted line plots the minimum water elevations required by the Water Use Plan. White dots indicate the first confirmed date of nesting attempts that subsequently failed (a dot may signify more than one nest on that date); black dots indicate the initiation dates for successful nests.

Other wildlife observations A list of incidental observations is included in Appendix 4. Observations of nesting or juvenile waterfowl or shorebirds were limited. In 2008, Common Mergansers (Mergus merganser) were often seen on the reservoir, but we observed only one brood of young, which appeared to be orphaned. In 2009, we observed a lone female Common Merganser that was likely incubating at White Grouse Creek on June 8; on June 15, we observed a female and six young at this location.


On July 10, 2010, a brood of Common Mergansers and a female Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) with two young were seen. Spotted Sandpipers (Actitis macularius) were recorded on the reservoir from May through August, and in 2009 we located a nest with four eggs in the central Lake on June 15. This nest was right at the water line on this date, and its fate is unknown. Cavity-nesting species (Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus) and swallows) were observed using cavities in emergent snags in the reservoir. These cavities provide potential nesting sites, and occur at a range of heights above the water level. As mentioned above, the flooding of eggs in a Northern Flicker nest in a standing snag was documented in 2008. There was a flicker in this nest in 2010, although eggs were not confirmed, and the nest again went underwater. A Belted Kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) was seen repeatedly near a known kingfisher nest site in 2010 (Bennett et al. 2002). Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) were observed nesting at several locations. One Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) was seen at White Grouse on May 30, showing nesting behaviour (agitated, broken wing behaviour). Two river otters (Lontra canadensis) were seen in the central lake in 2008, and one in the South Lake in 2010.

Discussion

Management questions The wildlife monitoring program was initiated to provide information to answer two management questions (BC Hydro 2005): I) “Will changes in reservoir operation impact wildlife species?”, and II) “What is the appropriate indicator species to assess wildlife impacts?” The results of the Loon monitoring study, in relation to these questions, are reviewed below.

II. What is the appropriate indicator species to assess wildlife impacts?

This question was addressed in the pilot study in 2006 (van Oort and Kellner 2007). Loons were not studied in the context of an indicator for impacts on a larger group of species. Rather, Common Loons were an excellent species to use to assess impacts of the changing water regime. They occurred on the reservoir in sufficient numbers (four to five pairs each year) to provide a useful dataset. Loons were relatively simple to locate and observe, allowing determination of the timing of nest initiation, the locations of some nests, and counts of broods of successful pairs. The three-year monitoring project resulted in a solid knowledge base of how Loons currently use the reservoir, and allows predictions to be made about the impacts on Loons from any future changes in reservoir operations. However, during this study, other species that were potentially impacted by reservoir operations, on the basis of nest location and timing of nesting, were noted and are discussed below.

I. Will changes in reservoir operation impact wildlife species?

This study confirmed that changes in reservoir operation as a result of the Water Use Planning process do impact wildlife. The change in reservoir operation with the WUP has likely had a positive impact on the nesting success of Common Loons. This is because the current WUP has resulted in changes in the timing of filling the reservoir, in order to meet minimum levels in the spring. This change resulted in the reservoir filling more quickly than the historical average. Additionally, minimum winter levels under the WUP are well above the historical average. Thus, although early-nesting Loons are still at risk of losing nests under the current WUP, the higher winter water level and the earlier filling of the reservoir have reduced the potential window of opportunity for nesting in a zone that will be inundated. However, years 3 - 5 of the wildlife monitoring program also showed that the water levels under the current WUP plan continue to negatively impact common Loons directly, through regularly


inundating nests, and delaying the start of successful incubation (except on floating substrates) until the reservoir is at or nearly at full pool. In the two years (2008 and 2010) when the reservoir filled relatively early, nesting success was relatively higher (50% in 2008 and 20% in 2010, even though two of the nests were lost to disturbance or predation). Clearly, filling the reservoir as early as possible in the spring, and not surpassing this spring peak level until nesting is completed, would improve nesting conditions for Common Loons. The timing of filling of the reservoir must also consider the other objectives of the WUP, including minimizing impacts on fisheries, recreation, and power generation (BC Hydro 2004). Thus, alternative solutions to mitigate impacts on Loons should be investigated. There are likely other species of wildlife that were positively impacted by the change in reservoir operations from adopting the current WUP. Like Loons, these species would probably also benefit from a regime with even earlier filling of the reservoir, based on what is known about life histories (see van Oort and Kellner 2007). Such species include Spotted Sandpiper, Killdeer, Sora (Porzana carolina), Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia), Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia) Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus) (if present), and cavity nesting birds that use low cavities in snags over the water, such as Northern Flickers and swallows. The Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) is one species that would potentially be negatively impacted by an earlier filling of the reservoir. The change to the current WUP likely did not impact Canada Geese, since they nest in shoreline vegetation very early in the spring. Locally, nests are initiated by the second week of April (CBA 2010), geese incubate for 25-30 days, and hatch by mid-May. Thus, Canada Geese may be subject to negative impacts from filling the reservoir any earlier than at present. However, Canada Geese were observed only twice at Whatshan Lake, with one observation of a pair with a brood and one large group on May 16, 2006 (data from van Oort and Kellner 2007), and one observation of three adult geese in June 2010. This may reflect their nesting prior to our surveys and low probability of observing them after hatching, when they move elsewhere to forage.

Reservoir impacts on Loon reproductive success Under the present WUP, reproductive success at Whatshan Lake ranged from 50% of pairs (2/4) successful in raising broods in 2008 to 20% (1/5) in 2009 and 2010, for a yearly average of 30%. In comparison, in 2006 (which was the sole year monitored prior to the implementation of the current WUP) none of the four pairs were successful (0%, van Oort and Kellner 2007). These figures are lower than the yearly average at the control lakes (44%), and lower than average rates success rates observed in other studies (69% in Washington, Richardson et al. 2000, 45% success or better across Canada; Timmermans and Jones 2002, 42–44% in Ontario, Badzinski et al. 2005, and 43-49% in Nova Scotia, Badzinski and Timmermans 2006). A portion of failed nests (four nests in three years) were confirmed to have been inundated by rising water levels at Whatshan. Three of these nests were built on shore, and one on a floating platform that became waterlogged and unstable as water levels rose. Additionally, two shoreline nests were confirmed flooded in the pilot study in 2006. Because the reservoir fills in May and early June when Loons are nest-building and beginning incubation, only nests on floating substrates, or nests initiated late in the season when the reservoir is at or nearly at full pool, will avoid flooding. Due to re-nesting caused by raising reservoir levels in the spring, Loons in Whatshan Lake Reservoir appear to initiate successful nests and begin incubating later (as late as June 15 at Whatshan) in comparison to data from the West Kootenays and Williams Lake. Based on nest records, Loons in the West Kootenay are described as laying eggs and incubating in early- to mid- May (Campbell et al. 2008). Young are present from mid-June until mid-September (Campbell et al. 2008). In Williams Lake, for which detailed data are available, Loons began nesting between May 13 and 23 in each of five years (Campbell et al. 2008). Our observations at


control lakes, while limited, also show earlier nest building and incubation and larger young in August, as compared to Whatshan. The consequences of later reproduction could theoretically include smaller offspring at fall migration, when Loons from central British Columbia migrate to coastal waters. Research on other species has shown that chance of survival and probability of breeding is lower for young from later clutches (Newton and Marquiss 1984, Hochachka 1990, Naef-Daenzer et al. 2001). Under the present WUP, successful nesting of Loons at Whatshan depends in part on their ability to use floating nest platforms and on the timing of water level fluctuations. Natural floating nest platforms are currently uncommon on the reservoir. The floating nest that was successful in 2009 but failed due to predation in 2010 was the only natural stable floating platform that we have observed being used (Figure 10).

Figure 10. The natural floating nest platform used successfully to hatch two young in 2009, and unsuccessfully with this one egg shown in 2010, when the egg was destroyed by predators or human disturbance before hatching.

Recommendations

1. Installation of artificial nest platforms Because of the recurrent loss of Loon nests due to rising reservoir levels in 2006 (van Oort and Kellner 2007), 2008, 2009, and 2010, and the only successful nest in 2009 being on a natural floating platform, we recommend installation of artificial floating platforms as a mitigation measure for loss of nests under the current WUP. Artificial floating nest platforms are widely used by Loons (Mathisen 1969, McIntyre and Mathisen 1977, Piper et al. 2002, Desorbo et al. 2007). Platforms have been used to increase nesting success at unsuccessful Loon territories on natural lakes and reservoirs with fluctuating water levels, through reducing loss of nests to flooding and reducing


loss of eggs or young to mammalian predators (McIntyre and Mathisen 1977, Piper et al. 2002, Desorbo et al. 2007). The use of an old dock by one pair in 2010 (which failed, likely due to human disturbance) highlighted both that Loons will readily use artificial floating structures on Whatshan Lake Reservoir, and that care must be taken to minimize disturbance from humans. Human disturbance, in the form of swimming, canoeing, or water-skiing, can disturb nesting Loons and lead to failure of nests (Titus and van Druff 1981, Kaplan 2003, Campbell et al. 2008). The five Loon territories all offer secluded locations for platform installation, such as:

the north-east bay of the north lake, the south side of the mouth of White Grouse creek, in Flicker Lagoon, in the large Lagoon at the centre lake, and at Muskrat Island in the South Lake.

Installation of platforms at suitable locations should be accompanied by monitoring to determine if platforms are used, the timing of use since they may allow earlier nest initiation, and the nesting success of Loons using the platforms. While installing nesting platforms may not eliminate the incidental take of Common Loon nests, it should improve their nesting success in Whatshan Lake Reservoir. A proposal to install and monitor nesting platforms in Whatshan Lake Reservoir for Common Loons has been submitted to the Fish & Wildlife Compensation Program – Columbia.

2. Habitat enhancement for cavity nesters Habitat enhancement work to help prevent loss of cavity-nesting broods to flooding could be accomplished through blockage of cavities that are used by cavity nesters and that are subsequently flooded. Such cavities can be identified by the high-water mark on emergent snags, or by measuring their height above the water and comparing this to the height of full pool. Alternatively, the snags containing these low cavities could be entirely removed. This would prevent nesting attempts and flooding of clutches laid in these cavities. Such measures should be paired with an assessment of the availability of alternate nest sites, and provision or enhancement of potential alternate nest sites if these are found to be lacking in the landscape.

3. Assessing impacts to other species This study investigated the impacts of the timing of filling Whatshan Reservoir on nesting success of Common Loons. We suspect that nesting success of other species that nest at low elevations on the reservoir may be similarly affected by the timing of reservoir operations. Determining the timing of reproduction of these other species (e.g., Sora, Spotted Sandpiper, Killdeer, Common Yellowthroat, Yellow Warbler) would provide data on how the dates of reservoir filling actually impact their reproduction, and allow assessment of a) if the timing of filling of the reservoir under the WUP benefits other species than the Loon, and b) if an even earlier date of filling the reservoir would benefit other species than the Loon. Although the impacts of the reservoir operations under the current WUP may be generally positive relative to pre-WUP operations, the potential for negative impacts on Canada Geese (Branta canadensis) should be addressed, through determining if Canada Geese are attempting to breed on Whatshan, and the dates of nest initiation (if any).


Conclusions 1. The two Management Questions were addressed:

I. Changes in reservoir operation did impact wildlife species. II. The Common Loon was an appropriate indicator species for assessing if reservoir operations impact wildlife.

2. Incidental take due to reservoir operations was documented for Common Loons and for Northern Flickers. It is suspected that other bird species nesting at low elevations on the reservoir may also be impacted by reservoir operations. 3. The results of this study suggest that the nesting success of Common Loons and other species that nest at low elevations in the reservoir drawdown zone may be improved by the operating changes resulting from the WUP. However, the impacts of reservoir operations on the nesting success of Loons and other species could be further mitigated by filling the reservoir earlier or through habitat improvements.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank Karen Bray, Ed Hill, Doug Adama, and Koreen Morrone for their comments on the earlier reports that were combined here. Corey Bird provided invaluable assistance in the field.

References Badzinski, S.S. and S.T.A.Timmermans. 2006. Factors influencing productivity of common Loons

(Gavia immer) breeding on circumneutral lakes in Nova Scotia, Canada. Hydrobiologia 567: 215- 226.

BC Hydro. 2004. Consultative Committee Report: Whatshan Water Use Plan. Prepared by the BC Hydro Project Team and the Whatshan Water Use Plan Consultative Committee.

BC Hydro. 2005. Whatshan project water use plan: revised for acceptance by the comptroller of water rights.

BC Hydro. 2006. Request for Proposals: Whatshan Water Use Plan Wildlife Monitoring 2006-2007 (Year 1) Contract Administration WGSMON#3-Y1-06

BC Hydro. 2007. Monitoring program terms of reference. Addendum 1 to WGSMON#3 Reservoir Wildlife Monitoring.

Bennett, S., S. Hoyle, and I. Robertson. 2002. B.C. Hydro Whatshan water use plan wildlife overview. Prepared for BC Hydro Water License Requirements, Castlegar BC, by Robertson Environmental Services, Langley, BC. 7pp.

Campbell, R.W. M.I. Preston, L.M. Van Damme, D.C. Evers, A. Roberts, and K. Andrews. 2008. Featured species – Common Loon. Wildlife Afield 5(1): 54- 146.

Cooper, Beauschesne, and Associates Ltd (CBA). 2010. Columbia River Project Water Use Plan Kinbasket and Arrow Lakes Reservoir. Reference: CLBMON 40: Arrow Lakes Reservoir Shorebird and Waterbird Monitoring Program: Year 2. Study Period: 2009

Desorbo, C., K.M. Taylor, D.E. Kramar, J. Fair, J.H. Cooley, Jr., D. C. Evans, W. Hanson, H.S. Vogel, J.L. Atwood. 2007. Reproductive advantages for Common Loons using rafts. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(4): 1206 -1213.

Hochachka, W. 1990. Seasonal decline in reproductive performance of Song Sparrows. Ecology 71:1279-1288.


Kaplan, J.D. 2003. Human recreation and Loon productivity in a protected area, Isle Royale National Park. MSc, Thesis, Michigan Technological University.

Kellner, M. and H. van Oort. 2009. Whatshan project water use plan: Whatshan wildlife monitoring (year 4). Prepared for BC Hydro Water License Requirements, Castlegar BC, by Kingbird Biological Consultants Ltd., Revelstoke, BC.

Mathisen, J.E. 1969. Use of man-made islands as nesting sites of the common Loon. Wilson Bulletin 81(3): 331.

McIntyre, J.W. and J.E. Mathisen. 1977. Artificial islands as nest sites for Common Loons. Journal of Wildlife Management 41(2): 317-319.

McIntyre, J.W. and J.F. Barr 1997. Common Loon (Gavia immer); the Birds of North America. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Naef-Daenzer, B., F. Widmer and M. Nuber. 2001. Differential post-fledging survival of great and coal tits in relation to their condition and fledging date. Journal of Animal Ecology 70:730-738.

Newton, I. and M. Marquiss. 1984. Seasonal trend in the breeding performance of Sparrowhawks. Journal of Animal Ecology 53: 809-829.

Piper, W.H., M.W. Meyer. M. Klich, K.B. Tischler, and A. Dolsen. 2002. Floating platforms increase reproductive success of Common Loons. Biological Conservation 104 (2002) 199–203.

Richardson, S., D. Hays, R. Spencer, and J. Stofel. 2000. Washington state status report for the Common Loon. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 53 pp.

Timmermans, S. and K. Jones. 2002. Canadian Lakes Loon Survey National Report: Western Loons have higher productivity than eastern Loons. Bird Watch Canada Newsletter:18-19.

Timmermans, S.T.A., S.S. Badzinski, and L. Champoux. 2005. Factors influencing productivity of common Loons (Gavia immer) breeding on inland freshwater lakes in Quebec, Canada. Canadian Lakes Loon Survey Quebec Report. 29pp.

Titus, J.R. and L.W. van Druff. 1981. Response of the Common Loon to recreational pressure in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, northeastern Minnesota. Wildlife Monographs 79: 3- 59.

van Oort, H. and M. Kellner. 2007. Whatshan project water use plan: Whatshan wildlife monitoring (year 1). Prepared for BC Hydro Water License Requirements, Castlegar BC, by Kingbird Biological Consultants Ltd., Revelstoke, BC.

van Oort, H. and M. Kellner. 2008. Whatshan project water use plan: Whatshan wildlife monitoring (year 3). Prepared for BC Hydro Water License Requirements, Castlegar BC, by Kingbird Biological Consultants Ltd., Revelstoke, BC.


Appendix 1: Guide for aging Common Loon chicks

Week 0

Chicks covered with dense natal down: sooty black except for white belly. Can only make very short dives. Brooding frequent and variable Both parents around for first few days.

Week 2

Brooding less common Week 3

Natal down replaced by second, brown-gray down. Juvenal feathers appear first on white under-parts

Week 4

First gray Juvenal feathers replace down on head lores and chin, advancing rearward and down throat.

Week 6

Both parents now leaving chicks, but remain aware of chick’s locations and are quick to return at sign of danger.

Week 7

Down still present on nape and dorsal tract by week 7. Week 8

Chicks fully feathered. Able to make long dives. Begin exercising wings

Week 11-13

First flights occur Week 15

Primaries fully grown. Eyes still walnut brown.


Appendix 2. Summary of water elevations and observations of nesting Common Loons Table 2.1. Results from Loon surveys in the summer of 2008. Water elevations at Whatshan Lake Reservoir, in meters above sea level, and observations at each site are provided.

2008 Whatshan Lake Reservoir territories

Control lakes

Date Water elevation (m) South Island Lagoon White Grouse North End

Mosquito

19-May-08 639.75 Paired Paired Paired Paired

24-May-08 640.34 Paired Building nest#1 Paired Paired

31-May-08 640.73 Laying Failed Paired -

6-Jun-08 640.59 Incubating Incubating nest #2 Incubating -

12/13 Jun-08 640.53 Incubating Incubating Incubating Not incubating

7-Jul-08 640.62 Failed - - Pair foraging

7-Aug-08 640.50 Failed Large young Small young Failed

Full size young


Table 2.2. Results from Loon surveys in the summer of 2009. Water elevations at Whatshan Lake Reservoir, in meters above sea level, and observations at each site are provided.

2009 Whatshan Lake Reservoir territories Control lakes

Date

Water elevation

(m) South Island Lagoon Flicker Lagoon White

Grouse North End Mosquito Lake Three Valley

Lake Staubert Lake Summit

Lake

2-May 638.66 Paired Paired

4-May 638.81 Paired

15-May 639.52 Paired Paired Paired Paired Not paired Paired

25-May 639.80 Incubating Paired - - Paired Paired

1-Jun 640.22 Incubating Building nest#1 Building nest#1 Paired -

8-Jun 640.42 Incubating Building nest#2 Incubating nest

#2 Incubating

Not incubating

15-Jun 640.74 Failed Incubating Failed Failed -

13-Aug 640.54 Failed Small young Failed Failed Failed

14-Aug 640.56 Failed Failed

17-Aug 640.59 Failed - single

adult Loon Failed - single

adult Loon



Table 2.3. Results from Loon surveys in the summer of 2010. Water elevations at Whatshan Lake Reservoir, in meters above sea level, and observations at each site are provided.

2010 Whatshan Lake Reservoir territories Control lakes

Date

Water elevation

(m) South Island Lagoon Flicker Lagoon

White Grouse

North End

Griffin Box Mosquito

Three Valley Staubert Summit

4-May 638.53 Paired

Paired

9-May 638.84

- Paired Paired

11-May 638.89 Incubating

Paired

15-May 639.13 Incubating 2

eggs Paired Paired Incubating? Paired

Paired


Building nest#1

24-May 640.28 Incubating Paired Paired Incubating? (Not seen)

-

Incubating


Failed nest#1

30-May 640.71 Incubating Incubating

1 egg Incubating? Incubating? Paired

3-Jun 640.75 Incubating

Incubating

nest#2

5-Jun 640.72 Failed –

disturbance? Incubating

Incubating 2 eggs

Incubating 1 egg

-

7-Jun 640.64 Incubating

13-Jun 640.63 Incubating Incubating Incubating -

19-Jun 640.60

2-Jul 640.69 Failed

Small young

10-Jul 640.66 Failed –

predation? 1 small young

Failed – water level

Failed

11-Jul 640.71

Diving

young Failed Failed Failed

Appendix 3: Location data for nests of Common Loons Coordinates and descriptions of the common Loon nest sites found at Whatshan Lake Reservoir in 2008 - 2010. X/Y Coordinates are provided in Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) units (NAD 83, Zone 11).

Territory Date Status X

(Easting) Y

(Northing) Nest

description Nest site

description

South Island 6 Jun 08 Failed 419884 5530143 Grass, mud On eastern shoreline in open site

Lagoon 24 May 08 Failed 421728 5535154 Grass, mud,

moss

On floating log in the lagoon behind the

eastside cattail marsh

Flicker Lagoon

1 Jun 09 Failed 421781 5536150

Mossy nest, scraped

down from forest floor

On steep rocky bank below

forested slope; in protected

cove

Flicker Lagoon

8 Jun 09 Failed 421925 5536307 Grass, mud Grassy open

riparian area, in cove

15 Jun 09

Success Lagoon

30 May 10 Failed 421748 5535048 Grass, mud

Grassy mound on base of fallen

log, floating in lagoon

South Island 15 May 10 Failed 419825 5530257 Mud, grass Old decrepit

dock

Flicker Lagoon

5 Jun 10 Success 422015 5536195 Mud, grass

On steep dirt bank below

alder; in protected cove

White Grouse

13 Jun 10 Failed 421247 5539450 Moss,

scraped together

On mossy slope below alder;

unprotected NW aspect on small island; subject to wave action from wind or

boats

Three Valley 17 May 10 Failed 395974 5644317 Mud, grass

Grassy hummock below alder; on small

islet

Three Valley 3 Jun 10 Success 395991 5644308 Mud, grass Rocky bank; on

small islet


Appendix 4. Incidental observations of wildlife, 2008 – 2010

Date Location Easting Northing Species Total

number Male Female Young Comments

07-Aug-08 Whatshan river outflow - north end COME 1 0 1 0

07-Jul-08 Whatshan COME 1 1 0 0

07-Jul-08 Whatshan COME 1 a brood of young without a parent

31-May-08 Whatshan COME 1 0 1 0

24-May-08 north end of middle lake COME 2 1 1 0

24-May-08 south lagoon on central lake River otter

24-May-08 east marsh, southern lake COYE 1

24-May-08 Ladder rock COME 2 1 1 0

19-May-08 east marsh, southern lake MALL 0 1 1

19-May-08 east marsh, southern lake BWTE 0 1 1

02-May-09 Armstrong lk 451012 5616740 SOSP

02-May-09 Armstrong lk 451012 5616740 BUFF

02-May-09 Armstrong lk 451012 5616740 SCAUP

02-May-09 Armstrong lk 451012 5616740 CAGO

02-May-09 Galena Pass lk 446702 5616259 BAGO 2 1 1

02-May-09 Galena Pass lk 446702 5616259 CAGO 2 1 1

02-May-09 Galena Pass lk 446702 5616259 MALLARD 3 3

02-May-09 Box lk 449000 5563000 BUFF 40

02-May-09 Box lk 449000 5563000 COME 4 4

04-May-09 Griffin lk 394106 5617370 Bald eagle 1

04-May-09 3-valley gap 396378 5642881 BUFF 2 1 1

08-Jun-09 Whatshan 421260 5539522 COME 1 1 lone female at White Grouse

08-Jun-09 Whatshan 419825 5530116 SPSA 2 S end of S Lake

08-Jun-09 Whatshan 419825 5530116 unk

sandpiper 1 S end of S Lake. Large sandpiper.

15-Jun-09 Whatshan 421925 5536307 SPSA 1 1

nest - flushed female accidentally. 4 eggs in nest, right at high water level.

15-Jun-09 Whatshan 420983 5539855 COME 7 1 6 Female with 6 young.

13-Aug-09 Whatshan 420389 5543078 COME 1 1 molting

17-Aug-09 3-valley gap 396063 5644230 COME 6 6

17-Aug-09 3-valley gap 396063 5644230 GULL sp 2 1? 1

17-Aug-09 Griffin lk 394106 5617370 SPSA 1

09-May-10 Box SCAUP 8

09-May-10 Box AMCO 4

09-May-10 Box MALL 1 1

09-May-10 Box RUDU 2

09-May-10 Box BUFF 12

09-May-10 Box OSPR 1 and nest

25-May-10 Griffin CANG 10 6 4 adults with approx 6 young

03-Jun-10 Griffin Scoter sp. 3

09-May-10 Summit Lk CANG 6 1 1 4

09-May-10 Summit Lk CANG 2 1 1

09-May-10 Summit Lk COME 2

09-May-10 Summit Lk RUDU 12



Date Location Easting Northing Species Total

number Male Female Young Comments

09-May-10 Summit Lk SOSP 2 1 1 nest with 4 eggs

09-May-10 Summit Lk BAEA 1 1 1 young by rest area

04-May-10 Three Valley CANG 3

04-May-10 Three Valley BUFF 2 1 1

04-May-10 Three Valley COME 1

04-May-10 Three Valley CANG 6 1 1 4

yellow fluffy young. Maybe 4, hard to count.

25-May-10 Three Valley SPSA 2

25-May-10 Three Valley BUFF 2 1 1

02-Jul-10 Three Valley CANG 9 5 4 adults, 5 1/2 sized young

24-May-10 Whatshan SPSA 2 pair on log boom at South Island

24-May-10 Whatshan SPSA 2

pair on promontory near where last years nest was

30-May-10 Whatshan SPSA 2 on log booms at S end

30-May-10 Whatshan 5536243 421884 SPSA 1

nest in Flicker Lagoon on peninsula?

30-May-10 Whatshan NOFL 1

Head poking our of hole in Flicker Lagoon

30-May-10 Whatshan COGO 1 1 female goldeneye looking nervous

30-May-10 Whatshan 5545613 420883 OSPR 1 osprey on nest

30-May-10 Whatshan KING 1

kingfisher in narrows just S of north lake

30-May-10 Whatshan KILL 1 White Grouse

05-Jun-10 Whatshan COME 1 1 by White Grouse

05-Jun-10 Whatshan SPSA 2 S end

05-Jun-10 Whatshan OSPR 1 on nest at S end powerline, east side

05-Jun-10 Whatshan KING 1

nest in bank just S of north lake. No bird seen in area this trip but hole looks freshly used

13-Jun-10 Whatshan SPSA 1 White Grouse

13-Jun-10 Whatshan CANG 3 White Grouse

10-Jul-10 Whatshan SPSA 1 White Grouse

10-Jul-10 Whatshan 5536370 421910 BAEA 1 Loongoon

10-Jul-10 Whatshan 5534881 420131 M-river otter 1 NW corner S Lake

10-Jul-10 Whatshan 5534881 420131 BAEA 1 1 in nest, NW corner S Lake

10-Jul-10 Whatshan 5534407 420624 COME 8 brood. NE corner S lake

10-Jul-10 Whatshan OSPR 1

on nest on powerline, SE corner of S lake

10-Jul-10 Whatshan 5535657 421756 MALL 3 1 2 mallard female with 2 young

whatshan project water use plan - bc hydro · pdf filewhatshan project water use plan . ......

Documents