hay-zama lakes waterfowl staging and bald eagle nesting ......the hay‐zama lakes complex (hzlc),...

Hay-Zama Lakes Waterfowl Staging and Bald Eagle Nesting Monitoring Program, 2008

CONSERVATIONCONSERVATION

REPORT REPORT

SERIESSERIES

CONSERVATIONCONSERVATION

REPORT REPORT

SERIESSERIES 25% Post Consumer Fibre

When separated, both the binding and paper in this document are recyclable

The Alberta Conservation Association is a Delegated Administrative Organization under Alberta’s Wildlife Act.

Hay‐Zama Lakes Waterfowl Staging and Bald Eagle Nesting Monitoring Program, 2008

Ken D. Wright Alberta Conservation Association

Bag 900‐26 Peace River, Alberta, Canada

T8S 1T4

Report Editors DOUG MANZER KELLEY J. KISSNER Alberta Conservation Association 50 Tuscany Meadows Cres NW Box 1139, Provincial Building Calgary, AB T3L 2T9 Blairmore, AB T0K 0E0

Conservation Report Series Type Data ISBN printed: 978‐0‐7785‐8220‐5 ISBN online: 978‐0‐7785‐8221‐2 Publication No.: T/212 Disclaimer: This document is an independent report prepared by the Alberta Conservation Association. The authors are solely responsible for the interpretations of data and statements made within this report. Reproduction and Availability: This report and its contents may be reproduced in whole, or in part, provided that this title page is included with such reproduction and/or appropriate acknowledgements are provided to the authors and sponsors of this project. Suggested citation: Wright, K.D. 2009. Hay‐Zama Lakes waterfowl staging and bald eagle nesting

monitoring program, 2008. Data Report, D‐2009‐003, produced by the Alberta Conservation Association, Peace River, Alberta, Canada. 20 pp. + App.

Cover photo credit: David Fairless Digital copies of conservation reports can be obtained from: Alberta Conservation Association #101, 9 Chippewa Rd Sherwood Park, AB T8A 6J7 Toll Free: 1‐877‐969‐9091 Tel: (780) 410‐1998 Fax: (780) 464‐0990 Email: info@ab‐conservation.com Website: www.ab‐conservation.com

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Hay‐Zama Lakes complex (HZLC), located in the Mid‐boreal Mixed‐wood

ecoregion of Alberta, Canada, is an internationally recognized critical staging and

nesting area for waterfowl and shorebirds. Numerous oil and gas producing wells

located within the HZLC pose a risk to the aquatic ecosystem. The Hay‐Zama Lakes

Monitoring Program (HZLMP) was initiated in 1978 to moderate the potential impacts

of these industrial activities by monitoring waterfowl density and distribution. The

HZLMP is directed by the Hay‐Zama Committee (HZC) and functions as a cooperative

venture supported by a group of stakeholders representing the oil and gas industry,

federal, provincial and municipal government agencies, First Nations and conservation

groups. The Alberta Conservation Association (ACA) is a member of the HZC and has

been monitoring waterfowl within the complex since 1997.

The primary purpose of the monitoring program was to survey waterfowl densities in

close proximity to the producing oil and gas wells within the complex. If a large

congregation of waterfowl is detected near a well site, the Energy Resources

Conservation Board (ERCB) has the authority to suspend extraction activity. The

density necessary to suspend industrial activity was defined by Alberta Sustainable

Resource Development (ASRD) and specifies a threshold of 600 ducks and/or geese

within a 30‐m radius of a well site. Waterfowl monitoring occurs during spring and fall

migration periods (approximately 15 April to 31 May and 15 September to 15 October)

in compliance with the ERCB directive for this complex.

My secondary objectives were to estimate the number of staging waterfowl within the

HZLC during the two migration periods, and to conduct a one day survey of bald eagle

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nests, adults and eaglets along a traditional survey route

within the HZLC.

I flew aerial surveys over the complex approximately seven days apart for four weeks

in spring and seven weeks in fall during the migration periods. Spring surveys

commenced immediately after ice break on the complex, and fall surveys commenced

the final week of August. My survey route covered all producing wells in the complex

to monitor waterfowl numbers at the well sites, as well as transects throughout the

ii

iii

complex to estimate staging waterfowl numbers. Additionally, I flew a single aerial

survey for bald eagle nest sites in the complex on 9 June 2008.

I surveyed for waterfowl congregations near 25 active wells on 16 sites within the

complex in 2008 (six sites contained multiple wells). I observed waterfowl near 14 of

these sites on at least one occasion over the 11 week survey period, but did not detect

waterfowl congregations near the threshold limit for any of these well sites during

2008. The highest congregation of waterfowl within 30 m of a well head was 117 ducks

in spring and 240 ducks in fall. Extraction activities were not suspended in 2008.

Canada goose (Branta canadensis) was the only goose species I observed during spring

migration in 2008. Northern pintail (Anas acuta), and to a lesser extent, mallard (A.

platyrhynchos) were the most abundant of the identified duck species I observed (22.0%

of ducks were unidentified). I recorded the highest aggregate counts of both ducks and

geese staging over the entire complex during the first survey day in the spring (5 May),

similar with the long‐term trends (1978 – 2007 for geese and 1994 – 2007 for ducks).

I observed very few staging geese during the fall of 2008 (n = 61). Canada goose was

the most abundant goose species I observed and greater white‐fronted goose (Anser

albifrons) was also present. Canvasback (Aythya valisineria) and, to a lesser extent,

mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) were the most abundant of the identified duck species I

observed (17.5% of ducks were unidentified). I recorded the highest aggregate count of

geese staging over the entire complex during the third survey week in the fall (10

September), while the highest aggregate count for ducks occurred during the fourth

week (17 September), which was consistent with long‐term trends (1978 – 2007 for

geese and 1994 – 2007 for ducks).

I identified five nesting pairs of bald eagles during the one day survey. This count was

similar to annual surveys since 1995 (range = 3 to 7 nesting pairs). Numbers of eaglets

observed in active nests in 2008 ranged from one to three.

Key words: Hay‐Zama Lakes, wetlands, waterfowl, staging birds, aerial survey.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to the following individuals, agencies and corporations for their

contributions and assistance in delivering this project. The Hay‐Zama Committee

oversaw all activities of the project and fostered a collaborative and cooperative

approach to working with all stakeholders. Funding was provided by the committee’s

industry members: Advantage Oil and Gas Ltd. and Pengrowth Corporation.

Technical support for aerial surveys was provided by Ryan Hermanutz and Oksana

Izio (Alberta Conservation Association). Velma Hudson, Doug Manzer (Alberta

Conservation Association) and Kelley Kissner reviewed this report and provided

valuable insights and editorial suggestions.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................................ iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. v

LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................................................vi

LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................................vii

LIST OF APPENDICES ...........................................................................................................viii

1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 General introduction ................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Survey rationale ......................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Survey objectives ....................................................................................................... 3

2.0 SURVEY AREA .............................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Description ................................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Ecoregion, forest cover and soils ............................................................................. 6 2.3 Plant and animal communities ................................................................................ 6

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS ................................................................................... 7 3.1 Waterfowl monitoring near well heads.................................................................. 7 3.2 Waterfowl staging numbers within the complex.................................................. 8 3.3 Bald eagle nesting survey......................................................................................... 9

4.0 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... 10 4.1 Waterfowl monitoring near well heads................................................................ 10 4.2 Waterfowl staging numbers within the complex................................................ 10 4.3 Bald eagle nesting survey....................................................................................... 15 4.4 Summary................................................................................................................... 16

5.0 LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................. 19

6.0 APPENDIX.................................................................................................................... 21

v

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of Hay‐Zama Lakes survey area and oil and gas well sites

monitored from 5 to 26 May and from 27 August to 8 October 2008. ............ 5 Figure 2. Relative abundance of identified duck species observed during the 2008

spring and fall migrations in the Hay‐Zama survey area in Alberta............ 14 Figure 3. Locations of bald eagle nest sites observed in an aerial survey in the Hay‐

Zama survey area 9 June 2008. ........................................................................... 18

vi

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of the number of total waterfowl observed at each well site

monitored during spring migration .................................................................. 11 Table 2. Summary of the number of total waterfowl observed at each well site

monitored during fall migration ........................................................................ 12 Table 3. Summary of the number of ducks and geese observed in the Hay‐Zama

survey area in spring 2008................................................................................... 13 Table 4. Summary of the number of ducks and geese observed in the Hay‐Zama

survey area in fall 2008. ....................................................................................... 15 Table 5. Summary of bald eagle nests classed as rearing, empty or absent along with

the presence of adults, eaglets and eggs in the Hay‐Zama survey area during an aerial survey on 9 June 2008. ............................................................ 17

vii

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1. Summary of observations of waterfowl and general habitat

descriptions for each of the 16 well site locations monitored in the Hay‐Zama survey area in Alberta ........................................................... 21

Appendix 2. Summary of highest aggregate numbers of geese observed from 1978

to 2008 during spring and fall migration in the Hay‐Zama survey area in Alberta..................................................................................................... 24

Appendix 3. Summary of highest aggregate numbers of ducks observed from 1994

to 2008 during spring and fall migration in the Hay‐Zama survey area in Alberta..................................................................................................... 25

Appendix 4. Summary of abundance of waterfowl species observed on the aerial

survey route during the 2008 spring migration in the Hay‐Zama survey area in Alberta ............................................................................... 26

Appendix 5. Summary of abundance of waterfowl species observed on the aerial

survey route during the 2008 fall migration in the Hay‐Zama survey area in Alberta ............................................................................................ 27

Appendix 6. Summary of the results of bald eagle nesting surveys in the Hay‐

Zama survey area in Alberta from 1994 to 2008. ................................... 28

viii

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General introduction

The Hay‐Zama Lakes complex (HZLC), located in the Mid‐boreal Mixed‐wood

ecoregion of Alberta has gained international recognition for its significance for staging

waterfowl and shorebirds. Official recognition includes the 1981 Ramsar Convention

designating the HZLC as a “Wetland of International Importance, especially as

Waterfowl Habitat”, and nomination by the World Heritage Convention as a World

Heritage Site in 1990. In 1999, it was designated as a Wildland Provincial Park by the

Province of Alberta.

The HZLC has a long history of industrial activity. Oil and gas exploration has

occurred in the complex since 1965 and currently there are 25 producing oil and gas

wells located on 16 sites within the complex boundaries. Stakeholders felt that the high

level of industrial activity within the complex may have a negative affect on wildlife,

particularly waterfowl. Risks to local wildlife populations range from harassment from

regular well maintenance activities to increased risk of exposure to spills of crude oil or

diesel used to power pump jacks. To moderate the potential impacts of oil and gas

activities on aquatic ecosystems in the complex, the Hay‐Zama Committee (HZC) was

formed in 1978, which then initiated the Hay‐Zama Lakes Monitoring Program

(HZLMP), focusing on monitoring migrating waterfowl and nesting bald eagles

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus).

The HZC consists of representatives from the oil and gas industry (Advantage Oil and

Gas Ltd. and Pengrowth Corporation), Dene Tha’ First Nation, Energy Resources

Conservation Board, municipal, provincial and federal government agencies (M.D. of

Mackenzie #23; Alberta Energy; Alberta Environment; Alberta Sustainable Resource

Development (ASRD) ‐ Fish and Wildlife Division and Public Lands and Forests

Division; Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation; Environment Canada – Department

of Fisheries and Oceans), and environmental and conservation organizations (Alberta

Conservation Association; Alberta Wilderness Association; Ducks Unlimited Canada),

and collaboratively directs industrial activities within the HZLC. Although waterfowl

monitoring on the complex began in 1978 and includes all migration seasons except

1

1979, methods and effort have varied since the inception of the program. To

standardize monitoring efforts, the HZC enlisted the Government of Alberta – Fish and

Wildlife Division to carry out wildlife monitoring activities. This task was delegated to

the Alberta Conservation Association (ACA) by the government in 1997.

1.2 Survey rationale

Oil and gas operations within the HZLC are regulated by the Energy Resources

Conservation Board (ERCB). In 1995, ERCB in consultation with the HZC, revised

regulations for oil and gas operations within the HZLC. Boundaries were defined

around the wetland complex to include the areas most environmentally sensitive to

industrial activity (Alberta Energy and Utilities Board 1996). Monitoring protocols of

select wildlife species (waterfowl and bald eagles) within the new boundaries were

developed by the HZC to comply with the following clause in the ERCB guidelines

pertaining to general drilling and production activities:

1. During a 5‐week spring period (commencing mid‐April) and an 8‐week fall

period (commencing mid‐August) each year, the company shall:

a. Suspend well production and helicopter operations, or

b. AEP [Alberta Environmental Protection, presently Alberta Sustainable

Resources Division (ASRD)] and operators within the Complex will

monitor fish and wildlife activity in the Complex and, in consultation

with the Fish and Wildlife Division of AEP, determine for which wells, if

any, suspension of production and helicopter operations is required and

for what period of time.

2. Suspension of operation shall include:

a. Consultation with the EUB to establish appropriate shutdown

procedures and sequences,

b. Shutting in the wells, and

c. Depressurizing all pipelines and vessels.

3. All wells, batteries, compressor stations, satellites, and pipeline routes shall be

patrolled within 24 hours of production being suspended.

2

These monitoring efforts allow for continued oil and gas production unless a large

congregation of waterfowl is present at a well site, at which point well production must

be suspended. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development defined a threshold of 600

ducks and/or geese within a 30‐m radius of the well site as the criteria for suspension of

well production. The alternative, as defined by ERCB, is a general suspension of

production on the complex during the migration periods (approximately 15 April to 31

May and 15 September to 15 October). This strategy was developed by the HZC to

ensure that a minimum number of waterfowl would be affected in the event of a

blowout or oil spill. This was determined by the committee to be an acceptable

compromise between economic activity and ecological integrity within the HZLC. The

ACA is responsible for monitoring and reporting the waterfowl congregations at

producing well sites to ERCB, but does not have any regulatory authority in this matter.

The ERCB has the authority to suspend production of any wells when threshold

numbers are detected.

1.3 Survey objectives

There were three objectives for this program. My primary objective was to monitor

waterfowl numbers near producing oil and gas wells at regular intervals throughout

the spring and fall migration periods and report to ERCB any incidents of waterfowl

congregations that exceeded the defined threshold.

My secondary objectives were to estimate staging waterfowl numbers on the complex

during spring and fall migration periods for comparison with previous years and to

gauge progress of the season’s migration, and also to estimate the number of bald eagle

nests, adults and eaglets on the complex.

3

4

2.0 SURVEY AREA

2.1 Description

The Hay‐Zama lakes are part of a unique and diverse wetland complex located in

northwestern Alberta at 58o 45’ N, 119o 00’ W (Figure 1). Comprised of over 50,000 ha

of open water, wet meadows, rivers and floodplain woodlands, this area is

characterized by highly variable water levels both on a seasonal and annual basis

(Fearon and Larsen 1986).

The complex’s major fluvial system, Hay River, meanders through the complex,

separated from lacustrine cells by high levees. Other fluvial systems entering the

complex include Sousa Creek to the southeast, Vardie River, Amber River, and Zama

River all to the north, and Mega River to the northwest, as well as several unnamed

creeks (Figure 1). Major lacustrine cells include Hay, Zama, Duck and Sand lakes.

Numerous shallow sloughs make up the remainder of the complex’s wetland area.

During spring runoff, high water in the Hay River backs up Omega River and Sousa

Creek filling the complex. After peak runoff, the complex slowly discharges into the

Hay River via these same drainages. By mid‐summer some of the large ephemeral

lacustrine cells recede into vast grasslands.

Hay Lake, Amber River, and Zama Lake Indian Reserves all border the wetland

complex. People of the Dene Thaʹ First Nation have used and continue to use the

complex and surrounding areas for traditional purposes such as hunting, fishing,

trapping, gathering and traditional ceremonies.

Oil and gas wells within the wetlands are situated on man‐made islands with caissons

around the well head and accompanying infrastructure to protect them from high

water. Materials to build the islands, as well as caisson height, are regulated by ERCB

(Alberta Energy and Utilities Board 1996).

Figure 1. Location of Hay‐Zama Lakes survey area and oil and gas well sites monitored from 5 to 26 May and from 27 August to

8 October 2008. Inset is a map of Alberta showing the location of the study area within the province.

5

2.2 Ecoregion, forest cover and soils

The HZLC occurs in the Mid‐boreal Mixed‐wood ecoregion (Strong and Leggat 1992).

The climate is characterized by relatively low annual precipitation, cool summers and

long, cold winters (Strong and Leggat 1992).

Forest cover in the ecoregion is dominated by trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) and

balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera), with understories commonly containing blue joint

(Calamagrostis canadensis), prickly rose (Rosa acicularis), bunchberry (Cornus canadensis),

wild sarsaparilla (Arilia nudicaulis), dewberry (Rubus pubescens) and common fireweed

(Epilobium angustifolium) (Strong and Leggat 1992).

Soils in the survey area include luvisols, regosols, gleysols and organic types (Bentz et

al. 1994). Luvisolic soils dominate the well‐drained upland sites where glaciolacustrine

deposits form the dominant parent material. Regosolic soils are prominent on recently

deposited sediments of fluvial origin like the floodplains of the Hay River and its

tributaries. Gleysolic soils are very common in poorly drained areas, often overlain by

organic layers or peat (Bentz et al. 1994).

2.3 Plant and animal communities

Fluctuating water levels in the HZLC is an important attribute of the region and

profoundly influences the structure and functioning of plant communities. Annual and

seasonal fluctuations of up to 2 m have been recorded by Environment Canada (2007).

Aspen and balsam poplar dominate the limited upland sites, with sporadic occurrence

of white spruce (Picea glauca) and paper birch (Betula papyrifera). Fluvial deposits

adjacent to watercourses are dominated by balsam poplar, with a dense understory of

willow (Salix spp.), red‐osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) and chokecherry (Prunus

virginiana). Dense willow thickets, often associated with thick grass and sedge

meadows (Carex spp.), cover the poorly drained transitional areas between the river

levees and the ephemeral lacustrine basins. Sedges, slough grass (Beckmannia

syzigachne), water smartweed (Polygonum spp.), yellow cress (Rorippa palustris) and

small bedstraw (Galium trifidum) cover the ephemeral lacustrine basins once water

levels have receded.

6

In addition to abundant migrating waterfowl, several other wildlife species occur in the

complex (Wright 1998). These include raptors, gulls, terns and numerous songbirds.

Bald eagles nest in the treed areas along the Hay River or in aspen uplands on the south

and west end of the complex. Northern harriers (Circus cyaneus) are commonly

observed and short‐eared owls (Asio flammeus) are occasionally observed during the

well site surveys. Wright (2000) reported 39 species of neotropical migrants in a 1999

mist‐netting survey in riparian habitats in the complex.

Ungulates include moose (Alces alces), white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), as well

as a wood bison herd (Bison bison athabascae) considered to be the only free‐ranging,

disease‐free herd in Alberta. Larger carnivores include black bear (Ursus americanus),

wolf (Canis lupus) and red fox (Vulpes vulpes). Beaver (Castor canadensis) and muskrat

(Ondatra zibethicus) have been observed in past monitoring surveys and their dams,

lodges and push‐ups are evident throughout the complex (Saxena et. al 1995; Wright

1998).

Fish species in the Hay River and tributaries include northern pike (Esox lucius),

walleye (Sander vitreus), burbot (Lota lota), white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) and

longnose sucker (C. catostomus) (Shaffe and Wright 1997). Additionally, flooded

grasslands in spring provide critical spawning and rearing habitat for northern pike

(Moller and Rosin 1994; Shaffe and Wright 1997; Wright 1998).

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Waterfowl monitoring near well heads

I counted waterfowl (ducks and geese) at all producing oil and gas well sites within the

wetland complex at weekly intervals during the two migration periods during 2008.

Spring counts occurred one day a week commencing 5 May and ending 26 May (four

one day counts). Fall counts occurred from 27 August to 8 October for a total of seven

one day counts. Overall, I monitored 16 sites containing 25 wells (Figure 1). Six sites

contained multiple wells and were regarded as single sites. Aerial surveys were flown

in an R‐44 rotary wing aircraft equipped with pop‐out floats at an altitude of

7

approximately 30 m with ground speeds of 60 to 100 km/h. My survey route was

similar to those of previous surveys (Saxena et al. 1995; Schaffe and Wright 1997) and

included all producing wells on the complex. Flight speed was reduced at well sites to

minimize disturbance of waterfowl and to facilitate accurate counts. The aircraft was

oriented to allow me an unobstructed view from the front left side, and if required,

would circle the well for an accurate count. Waterfowl counts at the well sites

encompassed a radius of 30 m around the well caisson.

If the threshold level of 600 ducks or geese within a 30‐m radius was exceeded, I would

notify the High Level office of ERCB immediately after completion of the survey. The

ERCB would then determine whether well suspension procedures should be initiated.

Any suspended well must be surveyed again within 24 h and ERCB advised of the

updated waterfowl count. Guidelines suggest ERCB will allow production to be

resumed as soon as waterfowl numbers are below threshold levels near wells.

The survey approach for monitoring waterfowl around producing wells has a number

of assumptions, as well as limitations, for assessing harm to waterfowl from industrial

activities. First, I assumed waterfowl near well heads are detected before they attempt

to move and avoid disturbance from the rotary aircraft. Second, I assumed all

individuals can be counted within 30 m of the caisson and this count is not biased as

densities increase. Third, the detection of waterfowl aggregations does not account for

issues that occur if chronic contamination were to occur near wells either affecting

waterfowl directly or by degrading their habitat and food web. Fourth, survey

intensity was limited to 13 days within a 91 day period over spring and fall, which

limits the ability to detect particularly high congregations of waterfowl should they

occur. Fifth, I was not able to conduct surveys in periods of adverse weather conditions

(wind speed > 50 km/h), which may preclude the detection of waterfowl seeking refuge

from heavy weather on the sheltered side of the island well structures.

3.2 Waterfowl staging numbers within the complex

I flew around the perimeter, approximately 200 m out from the shoreline, of all the

major wetlands in the complex to count the number of waterfowl over the migration

periods. I recorded all waterfowl within 200 m of either side of the survey route and

8

identified them to species, where possible. I recorded all waterfowl observed directly

in front and to the left of the aircraft, and volunteer observers recorded waterfowl

observations on the right side of the aircraft. I compiled these observations and then

compared them to counts from previous years and used them to gauge progress of the

season’s migration.

I compared my weekly counts with mean (± standard deviation) counts recorded for

this area since 1978. Goose migration data were available from 1978 (Calverley et al.

1993; Saxena et al. 1995; Schaffe and Wright 1997; Wright 2007). Duck migration data

were available from 1994 (Saxena et al. 1995; Schaffe and Wright 1997; Wright 2007).

The survey approach for monitoring staging waterfowl within the complex has some

assumptions and limitations for assessing staging population numbers. First, I

assumed most waterfowl present on the complex are either congregated, or are visible

from, the perimeter of the major wetlands. This is sufficient for the smaller wetlands,

but has some limitations for the larger water bodies. Second, I assumed minimal

movement of waterfowl between wetlands during the survey, preventing multiple

counts of individuals. Additionally, assumptions regarding survey intensity and

weather conditions listed in the previous section also apply to monitoring of staging

waterfowl.

3.3 Bald eagle nesting survey

I monitored nesting sites of bald eagles on the complex in a single aerial survey after

the first week in June when adults will flush from the nest more readily, allowing an

accurate count of eaglets in the nest (Wright 2004). My survey route covered all likely

nesting areas of the complex within the Wildland Park boundaries with large, mature

trees and included all nest sites identified in previous surveys (Saxena et al. 1995;

Schaffe and Wright 1997; Wright 2007; Figure 2). I geo‐referenced locations of nests

with a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit and recorded numbers of adults, eaglets or

eggs and reported nest status using the following categories:

1. Brooding ‐ if eggs or brooding adults were observed.

2. Rearing ‐ if eaglets were observed in the nest.

9

3. Empty ‐ if no evidence of nesting was observed.

4. Absent ‐ if the nest was not found in this year’s survey but historically

existed at the location.

Assumptions and limitations for the bald eagle nesting survey were: (1) the survey date

was late enough to ensure that all breeding eagles have nested, and (2) that any nests

not observed in previous surveys were visible from the aircraft and may be detected in

the current survey.

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 Waterfowl monitoring near well heads

During the 2008 migration periods, waterfowl numbers remained below threshold

densities at all well sites in the survey area. I observed waterfowl on 14 of the 16 well

site locations in the survey area. The highest numbers I recorded at a well site were 117

ducks at site 13 during spring migration (Table 1) and 240 ducks at site 12 during fall

migration (Table 2). Based on visual observation, water level in the complex was high

throughout the entire survey period. Brief summaries of observations of waterfowl and

general habitat descriptions for each of the 16 well site locations monitored in this

survey are provided in Appendix 1.

4.2 Waterfowl staging numbers within the complex

In spring 2008, the greatest aggregate counts of both geese and ducks occurred on 5

May (n = 5,756 Canada geese (Branta canadensis) and 12,666 ducks; Table 3), similar to

the date of annual high counts for geese since 1978 (Appendix 2) and for ducks since

1994 (Appendix 3).

For geese, this one day count in 2008 was similar to the long‐term average (n = 5,973 ±

5,553), but was a perceptible increase from the 2007 greatest aggregate count (n = 1,363)

(Appendix 2). For ducks, my greatest aggregate count in 2008 was less than both the

10

long‐term average (n = 27,702 ± 13,895) and the previous year’s observations (n =

15,675).

Table 1. Summary of the number of total waterfowl observed at each well site monitored during spring migration (5 to 26 May 2008).

Site # Well location 5 May 12 May 21 May 26 May 1 5‐2‐113‐5‐W6 0 0 0 0

2 11‐4‐113‐5‐W6 12‐4‐113‐5‐W6

65 0 2 13

3 3‐36‐112‐6‐W6 4‐36‐112‐6‐W6

0 2 3 7

4 6‐23‐112‐6‐W6 6 0 0 2

5 9‐14‐112‐6‐W6 0 42 2 2

6 12‐10‐112‐6‐W6 12 8 0 9

7 2‐16‐112‐6‐W6 2 0 0 0

8 10‐16‐112‐6‐W6 0 4 0 2

9 7‐15‐112‐6‐W6 8‐15‐112‐6‐W6

3 5 0 2

10 3‐23‐112‐6‐W6 0 8 0 0

11 6‐27‐112‐6‐W6 0 0 0 0

12

8‐33‐112‐6‐W6 4‐34‐112‐6‐W6 4‐34‐112‐6‐W6 6‐34‐112‐6‐W6

43 5 4 11

13 3‐28‐112‐6‐W6 3‐28‐112‐6‐W6 15‐21‐112‐6‐W6

0 117 0 3

14 3‐21‐112‐6‐W6 0 0 0 0

15 2‐29‐112‐6‐W6 7‐29‐112‐6‐W6

2 36 0 3

16 16‐32‐112‐6‐W6 0 0 2 0

11

Table 2. Summary of the number of total waterfowl observed at each well site monitored during fall migration (27 August to 8 October 2008).

Site # Well location 27 Aug 3 Sep 10 Sep 17 Sep 24 Sep 1 Oct 8 Oct 1 5‐2‐113‐5‐W6 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

2 11‐4‐113‐5‐W6 12‐4‐113‐5‐W6

0 0 12 12 1 0 0

3 3‐36‐112‐6‐W6 4‐36‐112‐6‐W6

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 6‐23‐112‐6‐W6 0 0 0 9 0 0 4

5 9‐14‐112‐6‐W6 12 3 22 65 0 0 0

6 12‐10‐112‐6‐W6 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

7 2‐16‐112‐6‐W6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8 10‐16‐112‐6‐W6 0 0 0 18 3 2 58

9 7‐15‐112‐6‐W6 8‐15‐112‐6‐W6

0 0 0 0 0 4 12

10 3‐23‐112‐6‐W6 0 0 0 0 2 1 1

11 6‐27‐112‐6‐W6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12

8‐33‐112‐6‐W6 4‐34‐112‐6‐W6 4‐34‐112‐6‐W6 6‐34‐112‐6‐W6

8 51 150 240 165 22 42

13 3‐28‐112‐6‐W6 3‐28‐112‐6‐W6 15‐21‐112‐6‐W6

0 25 69 159 6 1 0

14 3‐21‐112‐6‐W6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

15 2‐29‐112‐6‐W6 7‐29‐112‐6‐W6

0 0 6 15 42 1 0

16 16‐32‐112‐6‐W6 0 4 2 0 1 0 0

12

Table 3. Summary of the number of ducks and geese observed in the Hay‐Zama survey area in spring 2008. Geese: CAGO ‐ Canada goose, GWFG ‐ greater white‐fronted goose, LSGO ‐ lesser snow goose.

Date Ducks CAGO GWFG LSGO Swans 5 May 12,666 5,756 0 0 1 12 May 11,537 70 0 0 2 21 May 1,926 20 0 0 6 26 May 6,450 1 0 0 3 Total 32,579 5,847 0 0 12

Canada goose was the only goose species I observed during spring monitoring (Table

3). Swans were present in very low numbers (range = 1 to 6) on all of the spring survey

dates. However, I was unable to determine whether they were trumpeter swans

(Cygnus buccinator) or tundra swans (C. columbianus); similarities of these two species

make accurate identification from the air difficult without undue harassment of the

birds.

During the spring surveys, on average, 22% of ducks were unidentifiable. Of the 25,409

ducks I identified during the spring, northern pintail (Anas acuta) was the most

abundant species, accounting for 23.8% of the total, followed closely by mallard (A.

platyrhynchos) at 18.1% (Figure 2; Appendix 4). Green‐wing teals (A. crecca), lesser

scaups (Aythya affinis), canvasbacks (A. valisineria), American widgeons (Anas

americana), redhead (Aythya americana) and ring‐necked (A. collaris) ducks were

abundant as well, accounting for 9.3%, 6.5%, 6.4%, 6.1%, 5.9% and 5.8% of the total,

respectively.

The remaining 18.1% of duck species, in order of abundance, were northern shoveler

(Anas clypeata), gadwall (A. strepera), blue‐wing teal (A. discors), ruddy duck (Oxyura

jamaicensis), common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), teal (A. crecca or A. discors),

bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), white‐winged scoter (Melanitta fusca) and surf scoter (M.

perspicillata) (Figure 2). Other waterfowl species I observed included American coot

(Fulica americana) and eared grebe (Podiceps nigricollis).

13

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

gadw

all

American widg

eon

mallard

blue‐w

inged teal

green‐winged teal

unknown teal

northern shoveler

northern pinta

il

canvasba

ck

redhead

ring‐n

ecked du

ck

lesser scaup

surf sc

oter

white‐wing

ed scote

r

bufflehead

commo

n gold

eneye

ruddy du

ck

Species

Relative Abundance (%)

Spring: n=25,408Fall: n=107,499

Figure 2. Relative abundance of identified duck species observed during the 2008

spring and fall migrations in the Hay‐Zama survey area in Alberta (22.0% during spring and 17.5% during fall were unidentified).

I observed very few geese on the complex during fall of 2008. The greatest aggregate

count was 27 total geese (n = 18 Canada geese and 9 greater white‐fronted geese (Anser

albifrons; Table 4) on 10 September, similar to the date of annual high counts for geese

since 1978 (Appendix 2). The greatest aggregate count of ducks in fall (n = 27,796)

occurred on 17 September, similar to the date of annual high counts for ducks since

1994 (Appendix 3), but with considerably fewer numbers than both the long‐term

average (n = 46,771 ± 16,541) and the previous year’s observations (n = 47,176).

Canada goose was the most common goose species I observed during the fall (Table 4).

I only observed greater white‐fronted geese on 10 September. Swans were present in

very low numbers (range = 4 to 5) from 10 to 24 September.

During the fall survey, on average, 17.5% of ducks were unidentifiable. Of the 107,499

ducks I identified, canvasback was the predominant species recorded, accounting for

14

27.4% of the total, followed by mallard at 16.8% (Figure 2). I observed moderate

numbers of redheads, lesser scaups, northern pintails, green‐winged teals, gadwalls

and ring‐necked ducks, accounting for 8.5%, 8.3%, 7.3%, 5.9%, 5.2% and 4.9% of the

total, respectively.

Table 4. Summary of the number of ducks and geese observed in the Hay‐Zama survey area in fall 2008. Geese: CAGO ‐ Canada goose, GWFG ‐ greater white‐fronted goose, LSGO ‐ lesser snow goose.

Date Ducks CAGO GWFG LSGO Swans 27 Aug 18,693 0 0 0 0 3 Sep 21,541 8 0 0 0 10 Sep 22,152 18 9 0 5 17 Sep 27,796 0 0 0 4 24 Sep 13,003 20 0 0 4 1 Oct 15,118 0 0 0 0 8 Oct 12,448 6 0 0 0 Total 130,751 52 9 0 13

The remaining 15.7% of duck species I observed, in order of abundance, were common

goldeneye, northern shoveler, American widgeon, blue‐wing teal, white‐winged scoter,

teals (A. crecca or A. discors), ruddy duck, bufflehead and surf scoters (Figure 2). Other

waterfowl species I noted included American coot, common merganser (Mergus

merganser) and eared grebe.

4.3 Bald eagle nesting survey

During the 9 June 2008 survey, I observed five active bald eagle nests (Table 5). I

observed eaglets in four of the five active nests and classified them as rearing, and a

brooding adult in the fifth active nest, which I classified as brooding. This nest total

was within the range of observations from previous years (range = 3 to 7 nests/y) and a

decrease from seven active nests observed in 2007. Brood size ranged from one to three

eaglets, which was consistent with past observations. At least one adult was present at

each of the five active nests.

15

Nest site 6 contained an adult red‐tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) with a brood of four

young. Three nest sites (2, 5, and 7) present in past surveys were not observed during

the 9 June 2008 survey. Nest sites 2 and 7 were last observed 7 June 2007 in good

condition, and nest site 5 was burned in the 2001 wildfire.

Bald eagle nesting sites have been monitored annually on the HZLC since 1994

(Appendix 6). From 1995 to 2007, sixteen nesting sites have been identified (Figure 3)

and active nesting pairs observed on the complex ranged from three to seven annually.

The lowest count of three was coincident with a wildfire in late May 2001 that burned

through several nesting sites along the Hay River (Wright 2002).

4.4 Summary

The highest count of waterfowl I observed at a single well site during all 11 aerial

surveys was 240 birds at the oil well located on 8‐33‐112‐6 W6, well below the threshold

limit of 600 birds within 30 m of a well caisson. Consequently, ERCB did not suspend

production for any well sites in 2008. Northern pintail was the most common duck

species I observed during spring surveys, and canvasback the most common species

during fall.

I observed five active bald eagle nesting pairs during the 9 June 2008 survey. This

observation was a decrease from the seven active nests observed in 2007, but was

within the range of three to seven nesting pairs recorded during 15 years of surveys in

this area. Young eaglets observed in nests ranged from one to three (Table 5). Two

nests commonly used by nesting pairs in past years were absent on the 9 June 2008

survey.

16

17

Table 5. Summary of bald eagle nests classed as rearing, empty or absent (not found) along with the presence of adults, eaglets and eggs in the Hay‐Zama survey area during an aerial survey on 9 June 2008.

Location (UTM) Number observed Site Easting Northing Status Adults Young Eggs Comments 1 370080 6510848 empty 0 0 0 Nest in good condition.

2 368525 6514823 absent 0 0 0 Not found; last seen in 2007.

3 375317 6521738 empty 0 0 0 Nest in good condition.

4 392717 6517343 rearing 1 3 0


6 388188 6512214 other 0 0 0 Red‐tailed hawk adult brooding.



9 387999 6508046 rearing 1 3 0

10 390503 6511439 brooding 2 0 0 1 adult brooding on nest.


12 383359 6513520 empty 0 0 0 Nest in good condition; 1 adult roosting near nest.

13 382433 6507985 rearing 1 1 0

14 382816 6512683 empty 0 0 0 Nest in poor condition; no evidence of use.

15 372931 6509661 rearing 1 2 0


Total 5 active nests

6 9 0

1 NAD83 UTM Zone 11

Figure 3. Locations of bald eagle (BAEA) nest sites observed in an aerial survey in the Hay‐Zama survey area 9 June 2008.

18

5.0 LITERATURE CITED

Alberta Energy and Utilities Board. 1996. Interim Directive ID96‐1, Hay‐Zama Lake

complex ‐ special requirements. Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, Calgary,

Alberta, Canada. 9 pp.

Bentz, J.A., A. Saxena, and D. O’Leary. 1994. Biophysical inventory of shoreline areas

of the Hay‐Zama Lakes, Alberta. Prepared by Geowest Environmental

Consultants Ltd. for Resource Information Division, Alberta Environmental

Protection, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 105 pp.

Calverley, A.J., D.A. Young, and B.T. Gray. 1993. Hay‐Zama Lakes complex waterfowl

monitoring program 1993. Environmental Management Associates, Calgary,


Environment Canada. 2007. File data. Environment Canada, Meteorological Service of

Canada, Water Survey Division, Peace River, Alberta, Canada.

Fearon, P.W., and G.I. Larson. 1986. Hay Zama Lakes survey report. Ducks Unlimited

Canada, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 10 pp.

Moller, K., and J. Rosin. 1994. Preliminary investigation of pike spawning potential on

the Hay Zama Wetland complex. Alberta Environmental Protection, Peace

River, Alberta, Canada. 7 pp.

Saxena, A.J., A. Bentz, and D. O’Leary. 1995. Wildlife monitoring program, 1994, Hay‐

Zama Lakes, Alberta. Prepared by Geowest Environmental Consultants Ltd. for

Granisko Resources Inc., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 99 pp.

Strong, W.L., and K.R. Leggat 1992. Ecoregions of Alberta. Alberta Forestry, Lands

and Wildlife, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 55 pp + App.

Schaffe, C.M., and K.D. Wright. 1997. Hay‐Zama Lakes biological study. Alberta

Environmental Protection, Peace River, Alberta, Canada. 16 pp.

19

Wright, K.D. 1998. Hay‐Zama Lakes Complex fisheries and wildlife monitoring

1997/98. Data report by the Alberta Conservation Association, Peace River,


Wright, K.D. 2000. Hay‐Zama Lakes complex wildlife monitoring 1999/2000.

Unpublished report by Alberta Conservation Association, Peace River, Alberta,

Canada. 18 pp.

Wright, K.D. 2002. Hay‐Zama Lakes complex wildlife monitoring 2001. Data report by

the Alberta Conservation Association, Peace River, Alberta, Canada. 14 pp.

Wright, K.D. 2004. Hay‐Zama Lakes waterfowl staging and bald eagle nesting

monitoring program, 2003. Data report, D‐2004‐021, produced by Alberta

Conservation Association, Peace River, Alberta, Canada. 22 pp. + App.

Wright, K.D. 2007. Hay‐Zama Lakes waterfowl staging and raptor nesting monitoring

program, 2006. Data report, D‐2007‐004, produced by Alberta Conservation

Association, Peace River, Alberta, Canada. 19 pp. + App.

20

6.0 APPENDIX Appendix 1. Summary of observations of waterfowl and general habitat

descriptions for each of the 16 well site locations monitored in the Hay‐Zama survey area in Alberta, (5 to 26 May; 27 August to 8 October 2008).

Well location 1. Grid reference = 5‐2‐113‐5‐W6 This oil well is operated by

Advantage Oil and Gas Ltd. and is located within the Hay Lake Indian Reserve (I.R.

209) in a willow thicket adjacent to an ephemeral sheetwater area. Waterfowl were

absent at this site except for the 17 September survey, when two mallards were

observed.

Well location 2. Grid reference = 12‐4‐113‐5‐W6 This oil well cluster (two wells) is

operated by Pengrowth Corporation and is located in an ephemeral marsh that

remained flooded for the spring monitoring period. Waterfowl were present at this site

in low numbers (range = 1 to 65).


operated by Pengrowth Corporation and is located in a willow thicket adjacent to an

ephemeral watercourse. Waterfowl were present at this site in very low numbers

(range = 2 to 7) during spring surveys only.

Well location 4. Grid reference = 6‐23‐112‐6‐W6 This gas well is operated by

Advantage Oil and Gas Ltd. and is situated in an ephemeral sheetwater area north of

Sand Lake. Waterfowl were present at this site in very low numbers (range = 2 to 9).


Advantage Oil and Gas Ltd. and is located in an isolated ephemeral sheetwater area in

the southeast part of the wetland complex. Waterfowl were present at this site in low

numbers (range = 2 to 65).


Advantage Oil and Gas Ltd. and is located on the west end of an unnamed permanent

21

lake body north of Sand Lake. Waterfowl were present at this site in very low numbers

(range = 3 to 12).


Advantage Oil and Gas Ltd. and is situated in a permanent marsh north of Sand Lake.

Waterfowl were absent at this site except for the 5 May survey, when two green‐winged

teals were observed.


Advantage Oil and Gas Ltd. and is situated in a permanent marsh north of Sand Lake.

Waterfowl were present at this site in low numbers (range = 2 to 58).


operated by Advantage Oil and Gas Ltd. and is situated in an ephemeral sheetwater

area north of Sand Lake. Waterfowl were present at this site in very low numbers

(range = 2 to 12).


Advantage Oil and Gas Ltd. and is located in an ephemeral marsh. Waterfowl were

present at this site in very low numbers (range = 1 to 8).


Advantage Oil and Gas Ltd. and is located on the east shore of Duck Lake. There were

no waterfowl observed at this site during the survey period.

Well location 12. Grid reference = 8‐33‐112‐6‐W6 This oil well cluster (four wells) is

operated by Advantage Oil and Gas Ltd. and is located in an ephemeral sheetwater

area between the Hay River and Duck Lake. Waterfowl were present at this site in low

to moderate numbers (range = 4 to 240).

Well location 13. Grid reference = 2‐28‐112‐6‐W6 This oil well cluster (three wells) is

operated by Advantage Oil and Gas Ltd. and is situated in the permanent lake basin of

Duck Lake. Waterfowl were present at this site in low to moderate numbers (range = 1

to 159).

22


Advantage Oil and Gas Ltd. and is situated in an upland willow area adjacent to the

Hay River, north of Sand Lake. There were no waterfowl observed at this site during

the survey period.


operated by Advantage Oil and Gas Ltd. and is situated in the permanent lake basin of

Duck Lake. Waterfowl were present at this site in low numbers (range = 1 to 42).


Advantage Oil and Gas Ltd. and is located in an ephemeral marsh between Duck Lake

and West Hay Lake. Waterfowl were present at this site in very low numbers (range =

1 to 4).

23

Appendix 2. Summary of highest aggregate numbers of geese observed from 1978 to 2008 during spring and fall migration in the Hay‐Zama survey area in Alberta. Mean date, number observed and standard deviation for observations from 1978 to 2007 are included for comparison with 2008.

Spring migration Fall migration Year Date of survey Total geese Date of survey Total geese 1978 28 Apr 5,588 27 Sep 13,688 1980 4 May 2,396 24 Sep 39,876 1981 6 May 6,278 20 Sep 8,417 1982 12 May 20,486 30 Aug 6,278 1983 5 May 22,064 10 Aug 7,604 1984 4 May 4,599 6 Sep 3,556 1985 8 May 3,529 20 Sep 5,445 1986 4 May 5,081 18 Sep 7,173 1987 5 May 8,588 31 Aug 3,692 1988 7 May 15,668 15 Sep 1,693 1989 29 Apr 6,398 2 Sep 1,317 1990 4 May 1,022 17 Sep 2,368 1991 2 May 817 10 Sep 4,062 1992 10 May 650 29 Sep 21,513 1993 7 May 1,068 24 Sep 4,724 1994 26 Apr 535 5 Oct 4,780 1995 3 May 9,082 8 Sep 7,122 1996 6 May 3,949 10 Sep 8,666 1997 7 May 3,973 2 Sep 222 1998 4 May 206 17 Sep 10,988 1999 29 Apr 6,975 9 Sep 7,570 2000 1 May 5,483 18 Sep 4,559 2001 30 Apr 4,252 13 Sep 4,332 2002 6 May 5,056 4 Sep 1,905 2003 28 Apr 7,879 15 Sep 5,035 2004 3 May 11,810 6 Sep 2,558 2005 3 May 7,113 5 Oct 2,904 2006 1 May 1,311 5 Sep 1,323 2007 30 Apr 1,363 13 Sep 1,036

1978 – 2007 AVERAGE

3 May ± 4 days 5,973 ± 5,553 13 Sep ± 12 days 6,704 ± 7,734

2008 5 May 5,756 10 Sep 27

24

Appendix 3. Summary of highest aggregate numbers of ducks observed from 1994 to 2008 during spring and fall migration in the Hay‐Zama survey area in Alberta. Mean date, number observed and standard deviation for observations from 1994 to 2007 are included for comparison with 2008.

Spring migration Fall migration Year Date of survey Total #ducks Date of survey Total #ducks

1994 24 May 18,417 8 Sep 35,525

1995 3 May 11,706 14 Sep 53,859

1996 6 May 19,810 16 Sep 28,255

1997 1 May 13,884 24 Sep 29,165

1998 8 May 32,676 10 Sep 62,941

1999 6 May 49,556 16 Sep 63,617

2000 1 May 29,307 2 Oct 32,902

2001 30 Apr 39,427 18 Sep 43,095

2002 13 May 52,725 18 Sep 43,095

2003 5 May 16,564 15 Sep 87,830

2004 3 May 43,111 15 Sep 32,016

2005 26 Apr 29,014 14 Sep 53,021

2006 1 May 15,951 18 Sep 42,295

2007 7 May 15,675 13 Sep 47,176 1994 – 2007 AVERAGE 5 May ± 7 days 27,702 ± 13,895 17 Sep ± 6 days 46,771 ± 16,541

2008 5 May 12,666 17 Sep 27,796

25

Appendix 4. Summary of abundance of waterfowl species observed on the aerial survey route during the 2008 spring migration in the Hay‐Zama survey area in Alberta.

5 May 12 May 21 May 26 May

Geese and Swans

Canada goose (Branta canadensis) 5,756 70 20 1

greater white‐fronted goose (Anser albifrons) 0 0 0 0

snow goose (Chen caerulescens) 0 0 0 0

Swans (Cygnus columbianus, C. buccinator) 1 2 6 3

Ducks, Grebes and Mergansers

mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) 1,539 2,120 155 793

gadwall (Anas strepera) 9 470 74 375

American widgeon (Anas americana) 605 780 85 78

blue‐winged teal (Anas discors) 148 326 45 64

green‐winged teal (Anas crecca) 1,771 356 97 138

unknown teal 187 59 35 18

northern shoveler (Anas clypeata) 320 776 60 162

northern pintail (Anas acuta) 5,621 311 7 105

unknown dabbler 599 303 2 74

canvasback (Aythya valisineria) 276 655 106 599

redhead (Aythya americana) 71 752 109 561

ring‐necked duck (Aythya collaris) 350 313 210 599

lesser scaup (Aythya. affinis) 262 862 279 260

common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) 70 123 48 243

bufflehead (Bucephala albeola) 59 32 43 46

ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis) 103 67 263 86

white‐winged scoter (Melanitta fusca) 0 77 0 93

surf scoter (Melanitta perspicillata) 0 4 0 98

unknown diver 15 152 16 48 grebes (Aechmophorus occidentalis, Podiceps grisegena)

5 17 8 23

common merganser (Mergus merganser) 1 0 1 0

unidentified ducks 661 2,999 291 2,010

Total 18,429 11,626 1,960 6,477

26

Appendix 5. Summary of abundance of waterfowl species observed on the aerial survey route during the 2008 fall migration in the Hay‐Zama survey area in Alberta.

27 Aug 3 Sep 10 Sep 17 Sep 24 Sep 1 Oct 8 Oct

Geese and Swans

Canada goose 0 8 18 0 20 0 6

greater white‐fronted 0 0 9 0 0 0 0

snow goose 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

swans 0 0 5 4 4 0 0 Ducks, Grebes and Mergansers

mallard 1,189 982 1,107 2,428 1,726 4,911 5,741

gadwall 753 771 1,781 862 496 314 640

American widgeon 949 425 114 795 89 179 77

blue‐winged teal 766 347 243 653 59 77 296

green‐winged teal 429 1,561 699 1,798 400 520 889

unknown teal 130 25 29 7 153 366 316

northern shoveler 922 695 597 134 130 172 47

northern pintail 891 1,294 143 862 623 2,021 2,055

unknown dabbler 408 442 88 245 522 1,002 370

canvasback 6,795 6,125 1,435 10,709 3,168 724 474

redhead 2,278 3,522 1,210 854 676 470 92

ring‐necked duck 743 650 2,309 787 324 88 411

lesser scaup 825 1,786 2,561 1,522 1,033 731 477

common goldeneye 169 51 2,014 1,068 402 312 61

bufflehead 4 154 155 258 147 34 7

ruddy duck 142 170 178 182 156 84 10

white‐winged scoter 0 483 345 585 253 95 70

surf scoter 0 19 250 154 8 2 0

unknown diver 115 81 441 328 558 256 87

grebes 402 259 491 276 155 80 56

common merganser 26 204 73 36 61 8 7

unidentified ducks 1,159 1,742 6,380 3,519 2,007 2,752 321

Total 19,095 21,796 22,675 28,066 13,170 15,198 12,510

27

28

Appendix 6. Summary of the results of bald eagle nesting surveys in the Hay‐Zama survey area in Alberta from 1994 to 2008.

Year Active nests Comments

1994 6 Source: Saxena et al (1995). 1995 4 Source: Schaffe and Wright (1997). 1996 4 Survey area expanded. 1997 5 None 1998 7 None 1999 5 None 2000 7 None 2001 3 Wildfire burned through east portion of survey area 2 d prior to survey. 2002 6 None 2003 7 None 2004 5 None 2005 4 Wildfire burned through much of survey area 3 wks prior to survey. 2006 4 None 2007 7 None 2008 5 None Mean 5.6 ± 1.3

CONSERVATIONCONSERVATIONREPORT REPORT SERIESSERIES

The Alberta Conservation Association acknowledges the following partner for their generous support of

this project

paku

Alberta logo

kkissner

Placed Image

kkissner

Placed Image

hay-zama lakes waterfowl staging and bald eagle nesting ......the hay‐zama lakes complex (hzlc),...

Documents