American Badger jeffersonii subspecies (Taxidea taxus jeffersonii) Western population and Eastern population: recovery strategy proposed 2021

Official title: Recovery Strategy for the American Badger jeffersonii subspecies (Taxidea taxus jeffersonii) Western population and Eastern population in Canada proposed 2021

Species at Risk Act
Recovery Strategy Series
Adopted under Section 44 of SARA

Photo of American Badger

American Badger jeffersonii subspecies – Western population and Eastern population

Document information

Recommended citation:

Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2021. Recovery Strategy for the American Badger jeffersonii subspecies (Taxidea taxus jeffersonii) Western population and Eastern population in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa. 2 parts, 20 pp. + 36 pp.

Official version

The official version of the recovery documents is the one published in PDF. All hyperlinks were valid as of date of publication.

Non-official version

The non-official version of the recovery documents is published in HTML format and all hyperlinks were valid as of date of publication.

For copies of the recovery strategy, or for additional information on species at risk, including the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) Status Reports, residence descriptions, action plans, and other related recovery documents, please visit the Species at Risk (SAR) Public RegistryFootnote 1.

Cover illustration: © Ryan Hagerty, United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Également disponible en français sous le titre

« Programme de rétablissement du blaireau d’Amérique de la sous‑espèce jeffersonii (Taxidea taxus jeffersonii), population de l’Ouest et population de l’Est, au Canada [Proposition] »

Content (excluding the illustrations) may be used without permission, with appropriate credit to the source.

Under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk (1996), the federal, provincial, and territorial governments agreed to work together on legislation, programs, and policies to protect wildlife species at risk throughout Canada.

In the spirit of cooperation of the Accord, the Government of British Columbia has given permission to the Government of Canada to adopt the Recovery Plan for American Badger (Taxidea taxus) in British Columbia (Part 2) under Section 44 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA). Environment and Climate Change Canada has included a federal addition (Part 1) which completes the SARA requirements for this recovery strategy.

The federal recovery strategy for the American Badger jeffersonii subspecies Western population and Eastern population in Canada consists of two parts:

Part 1 – Federal Addition to the Recovery Plan for American Badger (Taxidea taxus) in British Columbia, prepared by Environment and Climate Change Canada.

Part 2 – Recovery Plan for American Badger (Taxidea taxus) in British Columbia, prepared by the British Columbia Badger Recovery Team for the British Columbia Ministry of Environment.

Part 1 – Federal Addition to the Recovery Plan for American Badger (Taxidea taxus) in British Columbia, prepared by Environment and Climate Change Canada

Preface

The federal, provincial, and territorial government signatories under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk (1996)Footnote 2 agreed to establish complementary legislation and programs that provide for effective protection of species at risk throughout Canada. Under the Species at Risk Act (S.C. 2002, c.29) (SARA), the federal competent ministers are responsible for the preparation of recovery strategies for listed Extirpated, Endangered, and Threatened species and are required to report on progress five years after the publication of the final document on the SAR Public Registry.

The Minister of Environment and Climate Change and Minister responsible for the Parks Canada Agency is the competent minister under SARA for the American Badger jeffersonii subspecies Western population and Eastern population, and has prepared the federal component of this recovery strategy (Part 1), as per section 37 of SARA. To the extent possible, it has been prepared in cooperation with the province of British Columbia. SARA section 44 allows the Minister to adopt all or part of an existing plan for the species if it meets the requirements under SARA for content (sub-sections 41(1) or (2)). The British Columbia Ministry of Environment led the development of the attached recovery plan for the American Badger (Taxidea taxus) in British Columbia (Part 2) in cooperation with Environment and Climate Change Canada and the Parks Canada Agency.

Success in the recovery of this species depends on the commitment and cooperation of many different constituencies that will be involved in implementing the directions set out in this strategy and will not be achieved by Environment and Climate Change Canada, Parks Canada Agency, or any other jurisdiction alone. All Canadians are invited to join in supporting and implementing this strategy for the benefit of the American Badger jeffersonii subspecies Western population and Eastern population, and Canadian society as a whole.

This recovery strategy will be followed by one or more action plans that will provide information on recovery measures to be taken by Environment and Climate Change Canada, Parks Canada Agency and other jurisdictions and/or organizations involved in the conservation of the species. Implementation of this strategy is subject to appropriations, priorities, and budgetary constraints of the participating jurisdictions and organizations.

The recovery strategy sets the strategic direction to arrest or reverse the decline of the species, including identification of critical habitat to the extent possible. It provides all Canadians with information to help take action on species conservation. When critical habitat is identified, either in a recovery strategy or an action plan, SARA requires that critical habitat then be protected.

In the case of critical habitat identified for terrestrial species including migratory birds SARA requires that critical habitat identified in a federally protected areaFootnote 3 be described in the Canada Gazette within 90 days after the recovery strategy or action plan that identified the critical habitat is included in the public registry. A prohibition against destruction of critical habitat under ss. 58(1) will apply 90 days after the description of the critical habitat is published in the Canada Gazette.

For critical habitat located on other federal lands, the competent minister must either make a statement on existing legal protection or make an order so that the prohibition against destruction of critical habitat applies.

If the critical habitat for a migratory bird is not within a federal protected area and is not on federal land, within the exclusive economic zone or on the continental shelf of Canada, the prohibition against destruction can only apply to those portions of the critical habitat that are habitat to which the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 applies as per SARA ss. 58(5.1) and ss. 58(5.2).

For any part of critical habitat located on non-federal lands, if the competent minister forms the opinion that any portion of critical habitat is not protected by provisions in or measures under SARA or other Acts of Parliament, or the laws of the province or territory, SARA requires that the Minister recommend that the Governor in Council make an order to prohibit destruction of critical habitat. The discretion to protect critical habitat on non-federal lands that is not otherwise protected rests with the Governor in Council.

Acknowledgements

The federal addition was prepared by Megan Harrison, Greg Rickbeil, Ross Vennesland, and Kella Sadler (ECCC-CWS Pacific Region) with review and input from Matt Huntley,Thomas Calteau, Andres De Vleeschauwer, Tiana Colins, and Isabelle Ceillier (ECCC-CWS National Capital Region). Rich Weir and Karen Stefanyk (BC Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy), Lindsay Anderson (BC Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development), Todd Kohler (Department of National Defense), Diane Casimir (Parks Canada Agency), and Ian Adams and Denis Dean (consultants) also contributed to the document through helpful reviews.

Additions and modifications to the adopted document

The following sections have been included to address specific requirements of SARA that are not addressed in the “Recovery Plan for the American Badger (Taxidea taxus) in British Columbia” (Part 2 of this document, referred to henceforth as “the provincial recovery plan”) and to provide updated information. American Badger jeffersonii subspecies (Taxidea taxus jeffersonii) has two populations listed on SARA Schedule 1 – Western population and Eastern population; these designatable units only occur in British Columbia (B.C.). The provincial recovery plan uses the name American Badger (Taxidea taxus) in reference to the jeffersonii subspecies populations.

Under SARA, there are specific requirements and processes set out regarding the protection of critical habitat. The section “Habitat Protection and Private Land Stewardship”, and other statements in the provincial recovery plan referring to habitat protection may not directly correspond to federal requirements. Recovery measures dealing with the protection of habitat are adopted; however, whether particular measures or actions will result in protection of critical habitat under SARA will be assessed following publication of the final federal recovery strategy.

1. Species status information

This section replaces information on the SARA legal designations and conservation status for American Badger jeffersonii subspecies in Canada in Section 2 “Species Status Information” in the provincial recovery plan.

The legal designation for both American Badger jeffersonii subspecies – Western population and American Badger jeffersonii subspecies – Eastern population and on SARA Schedule 1 is Endangered (2003); the two Endangered populations were named and identified separately on SARA Schedule 1 in 2018.

Table 1. Conservation status of American Badger jeffersonii subspecies in Canada (from B.C. Conservation Data Centre 2020; NatureServe 2019). Information is not available for the Western and Eastern populations separately
Global (G) rank* National (N) rank* Sub-national (S) rank* COSEWIC status SARA status B.C. list

G5 (2016)

Canada: N2 (2017)

British Columbia: S2 (2015)

Endangered (2012)

Endangered (2018)

Red List

*Rank 1- critically imperiled; 2- imperiled; 3- vulnerable to extirpation or extinction; 4- apparently secure; 5- secure; H‑ possibly extirpated; NR- status not ranked.

2. Population and distribution objective

This section replaces Section 5 “Recovery Goal and Objectives “ in the provincial recovery plan.

Population and distribution objective:

To recover the American Badger jeffersonii subspecies in Canada by improving the subspecies’ population resilience and stability within each distribution unit (Western and Eastern populations) in Canada, through (1) avoiding (new) and mitigating (existing) barriers to safe movement within Element OccurrencesFootnote 4 (EOs), connective corridors and to/from the larger portions of the subspecies’ range in the United States of America (U.S.A.), and (2) preventing net loss of denning and foraging habitat within each EO. The quantitative minimum population target for the Western population is ≥250 mature individuals, and for the Eastern population is ≥160 mature individuals.

Rationale:

The American Badger jeffersonii subspecies was most recently re-assessed by COSEWIC as Endangered on the basis of low resilience – i.e., very small population size. Approximately 150–245 mature individuals are estimated to occur in the Western population and 100–160 in the Eastern population (COSEWIC 2012). Although no historical population data exist for American Badger jeffersonii subspecies in B.C., a decline from historic population levels has almost certainly occurred (American Badger Recovery Team 2008). Further, habitat quality and connectivity within each of the two populations has been reduced through human activity (road building and urban development) reducing safe movement and impeding gene flow, which may have consequences for both populations given their small population sizes. The range of the two populations in B.C. are continuous with, and connected to, the range of the subspecies in the western U.S.A. Both the Western and Eastern populations in Canada are vulnerable to roadkill (habitat fragmentation by roads). Loss and degradation of foraging and denning habitat is also a concern.

Wherever appropriate soil types occur, habitat suitability for American Badger jeffersonii subspecies is mainly driven by prey availability and is often ephemeral or based on human disturbance (e.g., horse pastures, pipeline rights of way, logging landings, burns). The dynamic nature of suitable habitat for the subspecies coupled with their ability to move long distances means that key types of habitat losses are those that result in irreversible change (permanent loss of habitat), and/or that introduce barriers to safe movement both within the species’ EOs and key connective corridors in B.C., and to/from the larger portions of the range in the U.S.A. The recovered condition of the subspecies in Canada is therefore associated with improved population resilience, ongoing stability and improved connectivity, resulting from appropriate management of human-caused threats that cause irreversible habitat loss and/or fragmentation.

Notwithstanding the historical population decline, the Western and Eastern populations of American Badger jeffersonii subspecies in B.C. are at the northern edge of the subspecies’ range, and were likely always small enough to be considered naturally precarious in Canada. It is likely that these two populations previously formed portions of one larger population connected via a contiguous American population, however, they are currently considered separate populations. The historical Western portion probably had more than 250 individuals but fewer than 1000 (aligning with COSEWIC assessment criteria for Threatened). The historical Eastern portion probably had fewer than 250 individuals (aligning with COSEWIC assessment criteria for Endangered). As such, the minimum population objective for the Western population is set at the numerical threshold for Threatened status (≥250 individuals), and the objective for the Eastern population is set at the upper bound of the current population estimate (≥160 individuals).

3. Critical habitat

Section 41 (1)(c) of SARA requires that recovery strategies include an identification of the species’ critical habitat to the extent possible, as well as examples of activities that are likely to result in its destruction. More precise boundaries may be mapped, and additional critical habitat may be added in the future if additional research supports the inclusion of areas beyond those currently identified. A primary consideration in the identification of critical habitat is the amount, quality, and locations of habitat needed to achieve the population and distribution objectives.

Critical habitat for American Badger jeffersonii subspecies Western and Eastern populations is identified in this recovery strategy to the extent possible based on the best available information. It is recognized that the critical habitat identified below is insufficient to achieve the population and distribution objectives for the species. A schedule of studies (Section 3.2) has been developed to provide the information necessary to complete the identification of critical habitat that will be sufficient to meet population and distribution objectives. The identification of critical habitat will be updated when the information becomes available, in a revised recovery strategy.

3.1 Identification of the species’ critical habitat

Critical habitat for American Badger jeffersonii subspecies is comprised of two subtypes: safe movement critical habitat that is necessary to support movement activities to sustain all other life functions, and core critical habitat that is necessary to support feeding / foraging and denning functions in addition to safe movement. The geospatial areas containing safe movement critical habitat and core critical habitat for American Badger jeffersonii subspecies are presented in Figures 1-8, wherever the following biophysical attributes occur.

Biophysical attribute description:

A description of the essential features and attributes of habitat for Badger jeffersonii subspecies that are required to support life history functions are provided in Section 3.3, Table 2 of the provincial recovery plan, and form the basis of the biophysical attribute description in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Summary of biophysical features and attributes of functions of critical habitat for American Badger jeffersonii subspecies Western population and Eastern population
Type Life function Biophysical feature(s) Biophysical attribute(s)

Safe movement critical habitat and Core critical habitat

Safe movement (which is necessary to sustain all other life functions: denning, foraging, and reproduction)

Barrier-free landscapes

Continuous habitat that is not impeded by anthropogenic barriers to safe movement, such as major roadways or large developed areas that lack safe passage corridors.

Core critical habitat

Denning and foraging

Diggable soils: soils consisting of unconsolidated material cohesive enough to permit both badgers and prey species to establish natal and over-wintering dens and for badgers to excavate prey, and deep enough to retain structure when burrowed into and provide energy-efficient burrowing and thermoregulatory advantages.

Areas with or without active dens that have the following soil attributes (see Apps et al. 2002; Duquette 2008; Ethier et al. 2010; Hoodicoff 2003; Hoodicoff and Packham 2007; Kinley et al. 2013; Klafki 2014; Messick and Hornocker 1981; Messick 1987; Soil Classification Working Group 1998; and Weir et al. 2003):

  • soil order*: brunisol, regisol, chernozem, gleysol, or gray luvisol
  • parent material*: lacustrine, glacio-lacustrine, fluvial, glacio-fluvial, aeolian, or glacial till
  • soil texture*: sandy loam to clay loam (>15% - <40% clay)
  • soil depth: >1 m

Core critical habitat

Denning and foraging

Dens

Active dens, wherever they occur

Core critical habitat

Foraging

Suitable areas for foraging: open habitats that have the potential to support fossorial prey species

Areas with or without active prey colonies, including natural grasslands, wet meadows, shrub-steppe, seeded dryland pastures, and open canopy forest having stem density <75 stems/hectare, and canopy closure <16% (Weir and Almuedo 2010).

Core critical habitat

Foraging

Prey

Active prey colonies and prey, wherever they occur, including but not limited to Columbian Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus columbianus), Yellow‑bellied Marmot (Marmota flaviventris), Northern Pocket Gopher (Thomomys talpoides), Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), Red-backed Vole (Clethrionomys gapperi), and Meadow Vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) (Hoodicoff 2006).

*Represented within provincial Soils Information Finder Tool (SIFT) database (https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/land/soil/soil-information-finder), and so used as a basis for delineating areas within which core critical habitat is found.

American Badger jeffersonii subspecies is able to utilize dynamic/ephemeral habitat types (e.g., temporary clearings resulting from forest harvest); therefore, locations of core critical habitat may change over time. Within the broader ‘units containing core critical habitat’, the location of core critical habitat will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Areas that do not contain the biophysical attributes required by the species at any time are not identified as core critical habitat. Examples of excluded areas are those that have human-built structures or surfaces that replace suitable open vegetation and prevent access to soils (e.g., existing buildings and human infrastructure; compacted or paved surfaces).

Areas within core or safe movement critical habitat that are functionally isolated from any adjacent source populations as a consequence of being completely surrounded by existing barriers at the local scale (e.g., grassy median in a divided highway with continuous concrete barriers on both sides, or an urban park surrounded by developed neighbourhoods) are also not identified as critical habitat.

3.1.1 Information and methods used to identify critical habitat
Safe movement critical habitat

American Badger jeffersonii subspecies must be able to undertake safe movement in order to access dispersed and temporally/spatially dynamic foraging, denning and mating opportunities. Sightings of American Badger jeffersonii subspecies have been concentrated within seven EOs and associated connective corridors, delineated based on overlays of key habitat attributes with extensive point location data from research projects, surveys and public sightings reports (Section 3.2, provincial recovery plan; Rich Weir, personal communication, 2020). While it is recognized that the species has been detected outside of these areas, the defined EOs and associated connective corridors represent the best current approximation of landscape units occupied by American Badger jeffersonii subspecies in British Columbia, or the areas that the species must be able to freely and safely move within to sustain all life functions. Safe movement critical habitat for American Badger jeffersonii subspecies is thus identified within the bounds of the seven EOs and associated connective corridors.

Core critical habitat

To support denning and foraging life functions, American Badger jeffersonii subspecies require soils consisting of unconsolidated material cohesive enough to permit both badgers and prey species to establish natal and over-wintering dens, and for badgers to excavate prey (Weir and Almuedo 2010, Kinley et al. 2014). The attributes of soils with these characteristics are summarized in Table 2. Core critical habitat for American Badger jeffersonii subspecies is thus identified within the seven EOs and associated connective corridors through applying a selection of the represented attributes from Table 2 to provincial soils mapping.

3.1.2 Geographic information

The geospatial areas containing safe movement and core critical habitat for American Badger jeffersonii subspecies are identified within the seven EOs and adjacent connective corridors (Figure 1-8):

Western Population:

Eastern Population:

Map of core and safe movement critical habitat for the American Badger jeffersonii subspecies Western population in the Cariboo, B.C., please read long description

Figure 1. Detailed units containing core and safe movement critical habitat for the American Badger jeffersonii subspecies Western population in the Cariboo, B.C. are represented by the yellow (core and safe movement) and pink (safe movement) polygons, where the criteria and methodology set out in Section 3.1 are met.

Long description

Figure 1 shows the American Badger jeffersonii subspecies, Western population, critical habitat in Cariboo British Columbia. Its critical habitat is contained within 10 x 10 km standardized UTM grid squares and the critical habitat consists of Safe Movement Critical Habitat and Core Critical Habitat. Its Safe Movement Critical Habitat begins northwest at Pine Valley and extends southeast throughout Gateway, Bridge Lake and south of Bonaparte Lake. It also crosses through Green Lake, 70 Mile House and goes west into Gang Ranch and Alkali Lake. It has pockets of Core Critical Habitat contained within the Safe Movement Critical Habitat: south of Bonaparte Lake, north of Gateway, the western point where Gang Ranch and Alkali Lake are present and the northwestern point where Pine Valley and Williams Lake are present.

Map of core and safe movement critical habitat for the American Badger jeffersonii subspecies Western population in the Thompson, B.C., please read long description

Figure 2. Detailed units containing core and safe movement critical habitat for the American Badger jeffersonii subspecies Western population in the Thompson, B.C. are represented by the yellow (core and safe movement) and pink (safe movement) polygons, where the criteria and methodology set out in Section 3.1 are met.

Long description

Figure 2 shows American Badger jeffersonii subspecies, Western population critical habitat in Thompson, British Columbia. Its critical habitat is contained within 10 x 10 km standardized UTM grid squares and the critical habitat consists of Safe Movement Critical Habitat and Core Critical Habitat. The majority of the Core Critical Habitat is locate in the center of the map and extends south. The Core Critical Habitat and the Safe Movement Critical Habitat are overlapping each other in many instances and both begin in the north just below Blackpool, and travel south crossing through Darfield, McLure, Kamloops and Brigade Lake. They also extend southeast crosses Falkland and Shuswap, and southwest crossing through Walhachin. The Core Critical Habitat is present also in the area south of Bonaparte Lake with little pockets around Gateway and 108 Mile Ranch. In the northwest and western parts of the map, the majority of critical habitat is Safe Movement Critical Habitat with only small pockets of Core Critical Habitat. The Safe Movement Critical Habitat is located west around 70 Mile House, crossing northwest through Green Lake, Gateway and 108 Mile Ranch.

Map of core and safe movement critical habitat for the American Badger jeffersonii subspecies Western population in the Nicola / Similkameen, B.C., please read long description

Figure 3. Detailed units containing core and safe movement critical habitat for the American Badger jeffersonii subspecies Western population in the Nicola / Similkameen, B.C. are represented by the yellow (core and safe movement) and pink (safe movement) polygons, where the criteria and methodology set out in Section 3.1 are met.

Long description

Figure 3 shows the American Badger jeffersonii subspecies, Western population, critical habitat in Nicola British Columbia. Its critical habitat is contained within 10 x 10 km standardized UTM grid squares and the critical habitat consists of Safe Movement Critical Habitat and Core Critical Habitat. There are two federal protected areas shown on the map both south of Penticton: one of them is Vaseux Lake Migratory Bird Sanctuary and the second, slightly below the first, is Vaseux-Bighorn National Wildlife Area. The Core Critical Habitat and Safe Movement Critical Habitat overlap each other on the map, with many pockets of Core Critical Habitat within the Safe Movement Critical Habitat areas. Both types of critical habitat begin north of the map in Westwold and travel southeast crossing through Vernon, Okanagan Centre, Kelowna, Penticton and Carmi, down south through places such as Oliver, Kettle Valley, and Midway. The two critical habitat types also travel west through Hedley, Princeton, Tulameen and northwest into Aspen Grove, and finally, north of Sunshine Valley.

Map of core and safe movement critical habitat for the American Badger jeffersonii subspecies Western population in the (North) Okanagan / Boundary, B.C., please read long description

Figure 4. Detailed units containing core and safe movement critical habitat for the American Badger jeffersonii subspecies Western population in the (North) Okanagan / Boundary, B.C. are represented by the yellow (core and safe movement) and pink (safe movement) polygons, where the criteria and methodology set out in Section 3.1 are met.

Long description

Figure 4 shows the American Badger, jeffersonii subspecies, Western population, critical habitat is North Okanagan. Its critical habitat is contained within 10 x 10 km standardized UTM grid squares and the critical habitat consists of Safe Movement Critical Habitat and Core Critical Habitat. The Core Critical Habitat and Safe Movement Critical Habitat overlap each other on the map, with many pockets of Core Critical Habitat within the Safe Movement Critical Habitat areas. Both types of critical habitat extend east of Okanagan Lake, Kelowna and Vernon crossing through places such as Creighton Valley and Cherryville. They also extend southeast of Penticton. The two types of critical habitat are also present northwest crossing through Falkland and Armstrong.

Map of core and safe movement critical habitat for the American Badger jeffersonii subspecies Western population in the (South) Okanagan / Boundary, B.C., please read long description

Figure 5. Detailed units containing core and safe movement critical habitat for the American Badger jeffersonii subspecies Western population in the (South) Okanagan / Boundary, B.C. are represented by the yellow (core and safe movement) and pink (safe movement) polygons, where the criteria and methodology set out in Section 3.1 are met. U.S.A. landbase (below dashed line) excluded.

Long description

Figure 5 shows the American Badger jeffersonii subspecies, Western population, critical habitat in south Okanagan. Its critical habitat is contained within 10 x 10 km standardized UTM grid squares and the critical habitat consists of Safe Movement Critical Habitat and Core Critical Habitat. There are two federal protected areas located south of Penticton on the map. One of them is Vaseux Lake Migratory Bird Sanctuary and the other one, which is slightly south of the first, is Vaseux-Bighorn National Wildlife Area. The Core Critical Habitat and Safe Movement Critical Habitat overlap each other on the map, with many pockets of Core Critical Habitat within the Safe Movement Critical Habitat areas. Both types of critical habitat begin north of the map in Vernon and extend south crossing through places such as Okanagan Lake, Ellison, Kelowna, McCulloch, Penticton and Carmi. They also extend south of the federal protected areas through places such as Oliver and Cawston on the southwest side and Kettle Valley and Midway in the southern end of the map and places such as Grand Forks on the southeast side of the map.

Map of core and safe movement critical habitat for the American Badger jeffersonii subspecies Eastern population in (South) Rocky Mountain Trench, (South) Elk Valley, and Creston / Yahk, B.C., please read long description

Figure 6. Detailed units containing core and safe movement critical habitat for the American Badger jeffersonii subspecies Eastern population in (South) Rocky Mountain Trench, (South) Elk Valley, and Creston / Yahk, B.C. are represented by the yellow (core and safe movement) and pink (safe movement) polygons, where the criteria and methodology set out in Section 3.1 are met. U.S.A. landbase (below dashed line) excluded.

Long description

Figure 6 shows the American Badger jeffersonii subspecies, Western population, critical habitat in south Rocky Mountain Trench, Elk Valley and Creston. Its critical habitat is contained within 10 x 10 km standardized UTM grid squares and the critical habitat consists of Safe Movement Critical Habitat and Core Critical Habitat. The Core Critical Habitat and Safe Movement Critical Habitat overlap each other on the map, with many pockets of Core Critical Habitat within the Safe Movement Critical Habitat areas. Both types of critical habitat begin north of the map around Premier Lake and northeast around Elk Prairie. They extend south and southeast crossing places such as Ta Ta Creek, Wasa, Marysville, Cranbrook, Lake Koocanusa, Newgate and Moyie in the south and Hosmer, Fernie, and Baynes Lake in the southeast of the map. Both types of critical habitat also extend southwest through places such as Yank, Kitchener, and Creston. The critical habitat in the southern parts of the map border the States of Idaho and Montana, United States.

Map of core and safe movement critical habitat for the American Badger jeffersonii subspecies Eastern population in (Central) Rocky Mountain Trench and (North) Elk Valley, B.C., please read long description

Figure 7. Detailed units containing core and safe movement critical habitat for the American Badger jeffersonii subspecies Eastern population in (Central) Rocky Mountain Trench and (North) Elk Valley, B.C. are represented by the yellow (core and safe movement) and pink (safe movement) polygons, where the criteria and methodology set out in Section 3.1 are met.

Long description

Figure 7 shows the American Badger jeffersonii subspecies, Western population, critical habitat in north Rocky Mountains Trench and north Elk Valley. Its critical habitat is contained within 10 x 10 km standardized UTM grid squares and the critical habitat consists of Safe Movement Critical Habitat and Core Critical Habitat. The Core Critical Habitat and Safe Movement Critical Habitat overlap each other on the map, with many pockets of Core Critical Habitat within the Safe Movement Critical Habitat areas. Both types of critical habitat extend northwest starting around Fairmont Hot Springs and extending southwest and southcentral crossing through places such as Canal Flats, Premier Lake, Ta Ta Creek, Cranbrook, Moyie, Bull River in the southwest part of the map and places such as Jaffray in the southcentral part of the map. Both types of critical habitat also extend from northeast into the southcentral part of the map beginning from Round Prairie and extending south through Elk Prairie, Hosmer, and down to Elko.

Map of core and safe movement critical habitat for the American Badger jeffersonii subspecies Eastern population in (North) Rocky Mountain Trench, B.C., please read long description

Figure 8. Detailed units containing core and safe movement critical habitat for the American Badger jeffersonii subspecies Eastern population in (North) Rocky Mountain Trench, B.C. are represented by the yellow (core and safe movement) and pink (safe movement) polygons, where the criteria and methodology set out in Section 3.1 are met.

Long description

Figure 8 shows American Badger jeffersonii subspecies, Western population critical habitat in north Rocky Mountain Trench. Its critical habitat is contained within 10 x 10 km standardized UTM grid squares and the critical habitat consists of Safe Movement Critical Habitat and Core Critical Habitat. The Core Critical Habitat and Safe Movement Critical Habitat overlap each other on the map, with many pockets of Core Critical Habitat within the Safe Movement Critical Habitat areas. There are a few federal protected areas on the map. Located northeast is Banff National Park of Canada and located north is Kootenay National Park of Canada. Both types of critical habitat border Kootenay National Park of Canada in the north and are located northwest of it. Both types of critical habitat begin north around Harrogate and extend south crossing through areas such as Columbia National Wildlife Area, Brisco, Edgewater, Dry Gulch, Windermere and Lake Koocanusa. The critical habitat also extends south of Lake Koocanusa.

3.2 Schedule of studies to identify critical habitat

The following schedule of studies (Table 3) is required to complete the identification of critical habitat for American Badger jeffersonii subspecies.

Table 3. Schedule of studies to complete the identification of critical habitat for American Badger jeffersonii subspecies Western population and Eastern population
Description of activity Rationale Timeline

Work with applicable organizations to complete identification of critical habitat in the Western population – (South) Okanagan/Boundary EO.

Critical habitat has not been identified for a portion of lands in the Okanagan / Boundary EO. This activity is required such that sufficient critical habitat is identified to meet the population and distribution objective.

2021-2031

3.3 Activities likely to result in the destruction of critical habitat

Understanding what constitutes destruction of critical habitat is necessary for the protection and management of critical habitat. Destruction is determined on a case by case basis. Destruction would result if part of the critical habitat were degraded, either permanently or temporarily, such that it would not serve its function when needed by American Badger jeffersonii subspecies. Destruction may result from single or multiple activities at one point in time or from the cumulative effects of one or more activities over time. Activities described in Table 4 include those likely to cause destruction of critical habitat for American Badger jeffersonii subspecies, however, destructive activities are not limited to those listed.

Table 4. Activities likely to result in the destruction of critical habitat for American Badger jeffersonii subspecies
Activity Description of effect Additional information

Creation of new/expansion of existing barriers that prevent safe movement within and between areas containing core or safe movement critical habitat (e.g., via road developments or land conversion for housing, industry, or crop plants).

Barriers result in isolation of suitable habitat, preventing badgers from moving safely within and between home range areas. This prevents the species from completing all life functions including reproduction and gene flow.

It may be possible to create barriers within areas containing core or safe movement critical habitat without resulting in destruction, for example, by installing or retaining safe passage corridors such as wildlife over- or under-passes.

Related IUCN-CMP Threat #: 1.1 - housing and urban areas, 2.1 - annual and perennial non-timber crops, 3.2 ‑ mining and quarrying, and 4.1 - roads and railways.

Most likely to result in destruction when portions of habitat are completely bisected, and when the barrier increases danger associated with movement (e.g., road development).

Destruction can result if the activity occurs at any time.

Destruction may be temporary (if accompanied by installation of safe passage corridors).

Conversion of habitat within an area containing core critical habitat such that there is a net loss in the availability of biophysical attributes (e.g., residential / commercial / industrial / agricultural development, transportation corridor construction activities).

Net loss of suitable habitat for denning and foraging causes destruction of core critical habitat by reducing the ability of the habitat to support key life history functions for the species.

It may be possible to convert some areas of suitable habitat for denning and foraging within the areas containing core critical habitat without resulting in destruction of core critical habitat, for example, by restoring foraging biophysical attributes elsewhere in the core critical where the denning biophysical attributes exist, and safe movement is possible.

Related IUCN-CMP Threat #: 1.1 - housing and urban areas, 2.1 - annual and perennial non-timber crops, 3.2 ‑ mining and quarrying, and 4.1 - roads and railways.

Most likely to cause destruction when conversion is at a larger scale (e.g., multi-unit developments vs single-family homes).

Restoration efforts may not offset destruction if undertaken more than 20 km from the converted habitat (maximum American Badger jeffersonii subspecies home range distance).

Destruction can result if the activity occurs at any time.

Destruction may be temporary (if accompanied by adequate restoration of foraging biophysical attributes elsewhere in the core critical where the denning biophysical attributes exist, and safe movement is possible).

Purposeful removal of a prey colony within an area containing core critical habitat (e.g., by targeting shooting, trapping, burrow-flooding, smoke-bombing, poisoning or similar actions).

Removal of prey sources causes destruction of core critical habitat by reducing the capacity of the area to adequately support the species’ foraging functions.

Related IUCN-CMP Threat #: 5 – biological resource use

Destruction can result if the activity occurs where/when a prey colony is active.

Destruction may be temporary (if prey recolonize sites and/or are reintroduced).

Deliberate tree-planting in naturally non-forested or naturally open-canopied habitat within an area containing core critical habitat.

Tree planting in naturally open areas causes destruction of core critical habitat by reducing the availability of suitable open-forest or naturally non-forested habitat to support prey required for the species’ foraging functions.

Planting trees in habitat that was naturally/previously forested is not likely to result in the destruction of critical habitat.

Related IUCN-CMP Threat #: 7.1 - fires and fire suppression.

Most likely to result in destruction of core critical habitat if tree planting is extensive enough to result in ≥16% canopy closure and/or ≥75-stems/ha stand density.

Destruction can result if the activity occurs at any time.

Destruction may be temporary (if planted trees are removed and open forest/grassland conditions restored).

4. Statement on action plans

One or more action plans for the American Badger jeffersonii subspecies will be completed within the 10-years following the publication of this Recovery Strategy.

5. Effects on the environment and other species

A strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is conducted on all SARA recovery planning documents, in accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program ProposalsFootnote 5. The purpose of a SEA is to incorporate environmental considerations into the development of public policies, plans, and program proposals to support environmentally sound decision-making and to evaluate whether the outcomes of a recovery planning document could affect any component of the environment or any of the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy’sFootnote 6 (FSDS) goals and targets.

Recovery planning is intended to benefit species at risk and biodiversity in general. However, it is recognized that strategies may also inadvertently lead to environmental effects beyond the intended benefits. The planning process based on national guidelines directly incorporates consideration of all environmental effects, with a particular focus on possible impacts upon non-target species or habitats. The results of the SEA are incorporated directly into the strategy itself, but are also summarized below in this statement.

The recovery measures proposed are not expected to negatively affect any other species. It is likely that efforts to conserve American Badger jeffersonii subspecies will indirectly benefit several other species at risk with similar habitat attributes including: Behr’s Hairstreak (Satyrium behrii), Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia), Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor), Desert Nightsnake (Hypsiglena chlorophaea), Grand Coulee Owl-clover (Orthocarpus barbatus), Great Basin Gophersnake (Pituophis catenifer deserticola), Great Basin Spadefoot (Spea intermontana), Half-moon Hairstreak (Satyrium semilunar), Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis), Lyall’s Mariposa Lily (Calochortus lyallii), Monarch (Danaus plexippus), Morman Metalmark (Apodemia mormo), Northern Rubber Boa (Charina bottae), Nuttall’s Cottontail (Sylvilagus nuttallii nuttallii), Okanagan Efferia (Efferia okanagana), Sage Thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus), Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus), Showy Phlox (Phlox speciosa ssp. occidentalis), Sonora Skipper (Polites sonora), Western Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis megalotis), Western Rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus), Western Skink (Plestiodon skiltonianus), Western Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma mavortium), Western Toad (Anaxyrus boreas), Western Yellow-bellied Racer (Coluber constrictor mormon), and Yellow-breasted Chat (Icteria virens).

6. References

Apps, C.D., N.J. Newhouse, and T.A. Kinley. 2002. Habitat associations of American Badgers in southeastern British Columbia. Can. J. Zool. 80:1228–1239.

B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2020. B.C. Species and Ecosystems Explorer. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Victoria, B.C. http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/ [Accessed February 8, 2020]

Duquette, J.F. 2008. Population ecology of Badgers (Taxidea taxus) in Ohio. MSc thesis. Ohio State Univ., Columbus, OH.

Ethier, D.M., A. Laflèche, B.J. Swanson, J.J. Nocera, and C.J. Kyle. 2012. Population subdivision and peripheral isolation in American Badgers (Taxidea taxus) and implications for conservation planning in Canada. Can. J. Zool. 90:630–639.

Hoodicoff, C.S. 2003. Ecology of the Badger (Taxidea taxus jeffersonii) in the Thompson region of British Columbia: implications for conservation. MSc thesis, Univ. Victoria, Victoria, BC.

Hoodicoff, C. 2006. Badger Prey Ecology: The Ecology of Six Small Mammals Found in British Columbia. B.C. Minist. Environment, Ecosystems Branch, Victoria, BC. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-109.

Hoodicoff, C.S. and R. Packham. 2007. Cariboo Region Badger project: year end report 2006–07. B.C. Ministry of Environment. 100 Mile House, BC.

Kinley, T.A., J. Whittington, A.D. Dibb, and N.J. Newhouse. 2013. Badger resource selection in the Rocky Mountain Trench of British Columbia. J. Ecosys. Manage. 14(3):1–22.

Kinley, T.A., J. Whittington, A.D. Dibb and N.J. Newhouse. 2014. Badger resource selection in the Rocky Mountain trench of British Columbia. Journal of Ecosystems and Management. 14(3): 1-22.

Klafki, R.W. 2014. Road ecology of a northern population of Badger (Taxidea taxus) in British Columbia, Canada. MSc thesis. Thompson Rivers Univ., Kamloops, BC.

NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: an online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. http://explorer.natureserve.org [Accessed: February 8, 2020].

Messick, J.P. 1987. North American badger. In Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. M. Novak, J.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard, and M. Malloch (eds.). Ont. Fur Managers Fed. and Ont. Min. Nat. Res., Toronto, ON. pp. 587–597.

Messick, J.P. and M.G. Hornocker. 1981. Ecology of the badger in southwestern Idaho. Wildl. Monogr. No. 76.

Soil Classification Working Group. 1998. The Canadian system of soil classification, third edition. NRC-CNRC Research Press, Publication 1646. Ottawa ON.

Symes, S. 2013. Winter ecology of the North American Badger (Taxidea taxus jeffersonii) in the Cariboo region of British Columbia. MSc thesis. Thompson Rivers Univ., Kamloops, BC.

Weir, R.D., and P.L. Almuedo. 2010. British Columbia’s Southern Interior: Badger Wildlife Habitat Decision Aid. B.C. J. Ecosys. Manage. 10:9–13.

Weir, R.D., H. Davis, and C. Hoodicoff. 2003. Conservation strategies for North American badgers in the Thompson and Okanagan regions: final report for the Thompson-Okanagan Badger Project. Artemis Wildlife Consultants, Armstrong, BC.

Personal communications

Rich Weir, B.C. American Badger Recovery Team Chair. 2020.

Part 2 – Recovery Plan for American Badger (Taxidea taxus) in British Columbia, prepared by the British Columbia Badger Recovery Team for the British Columbia Ministry of Environment

Official title: Recovery Plan for American Badger (Taxidea taxus) in British Columbia

Prepared by British Columbia Badger Recovery Team
December 2016

Document information

About the British Columbia recovery strategy series

This series presents the recovery documents that are prepared as advice to the Province of British Columbia on the general approach required to recover species at risk. The Province prepares recovery documents to ensure coordinated conservation actions and to meet its commitments to recover species at risk under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada and the Canada–British Columbia Agreement on Species at Risk.

What is recovery?

Species at risk recovery is the process by which the decline of an endangered, threatened, or extirpated species is arrested or reversed, and threats are removed or reduced to improve the likelihood of a species’ persistence in the wild.

What is a provincial recovery document?

Recovery documents summarize the best available scientific and traditional information of a species or ecosystem to identify goals, objectives, and strategic approaches that provide a coordinated direction for recovery. These documents outline what is and what is not known about a species or ecosystem, identify threats to the species or ecosystem, and explain what should be done to mitigate those threats, as well as provide information on habitat needed for survival and recovery of the species. This information may be summarized in a recovery strategy followed by one or more action plans. The purpose of an action plan is to offer more detailed information to guide implementation of the recovery of a species or ecosystem. When sufficient information to guide implementation can be included from the onset, all of the information is presented together in a recovery plan.

Information in provincial recovery documents may be adopted by Environment Canada for inclusion in federal recovery documents that the federal agencies prepare to meet their commitments to recover species at risk under the Species at Risk Act.

What’s next?

The Province of British Columbia accepts the information in these documents as advice to inform implementation of recovery measures, including decisions regarding measures to protect habitat for the species.

Success in the recovery of a species depends on the commitment and cooperation of many different constituencies that may be involved in implementing the directions set out in this document. All British Columbians are encouraged to participate in these efforts.

For more information

To learn more about species at risk recovery in British Columbia, please visit the B.C. Ministry of Environment Recovery Planning webpage at:
<http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/recoveryplans/rcvry1.htm>

Recommended citation

British Columbia Badger Recovery Team. 2016. Recovery plan for American Badger (Taxidea taxus) in British Columbia. Prepared for the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Victoria, B.C. 36 pp.

Cover illustration/photograph

© Richard Klafki

Additional copies

Additional copies can be downloaded from the B.C. Ministry of Environment Recovery Planning webpage at:
<http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/recoveryplans/rcvry1.htm>

Disclaimer

This recovery plan has been prepared by the British Columbia Badger Recovery Team, as advice to the responsible jurisdictions and organizations that may be involved in recovering the species. The B.C. Ministry of Environment has received this advice as part of fulfilling its commitments under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada and the Canada–British Columbia Agreement on Species at Risk.

This document identifies the recovery strategies and actions that are deemed necessary, based on the best available scientific and traditional information, to recover American Badger, populations in British Columbia. Recovery actions to achieve the goals and objectives identified herein are subject to the priorities and budgetary constraints of participatory agencies and organizations. These goals, objectives, and recovery approaches may be modified in the future to accommodate new findings.

The responsible jurisdictions and all members of the recovery team have had an opportunity to review this document. However, this document does not necessarily represent the official positions of the agencies or the personal views of all individuals on the recovery team.

Success in the recovery of this species depends on the commitment and cooperation of many different constituencies that may be involved in implementing the directions set out in this plan. The B.C. Ministry of Environment encourages all British Columbians to participate in the recovery of American Badger.

Acknowledgements

The British Columbia Badger Recovery Team has provided significant contributions to this recovery plan. Ian Adams was the primary writer, and Rich Weir, Carnivore Conservation Specialist (B.C. Ministry of Environment [ENV]), coordinated the preparation of this document and made many important contributions and suggestions. Peter Fielder and Leah Westereng (both B.C. Ministry of Environment) provided expert guidance and assistance. This plan benefited greatly from the comments of numerous reviewers in the governments of British Columbia and Canada including; Jonathan Tillie (B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure), Dave Trotter (B.C. Ministry of Agriculture), Chris Pasztor (B.C. Ministry of Natural Gas Development), Kirk Safford (B.C. Parks, ENV), Kirk Hancock (B.C. Ministry of Energy and Mines); Alan Dibb, Diane Casimir, Dwight Bourdin and Todd Keith (Parks Canada); Kella Sadler, Kim Borg and Darcy Henderson (Environment and Climate Change Canada). Robert Au, Integrated Pest Management License Officer (ENV), provided guidance on pesticide regulations in the province. Funding was provided by the provincial government with assistance from Environment and Climate Change Canada.

Recovery team members

Ian Adams, Vast Resource Solutions, Inc., Cranbrook

Lindsay Anderson, B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Nelson Helen Davis, Artemis Wildlife, Victoria

Alan Dibb, Parks Canada, Radium Hot Springs

Corinna Hoodicoff, Associated Environmental, Inc., Vernon

Shauna Jones, B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Kamloops

Richard Klafki, Nature Conservancy of Canada, Invermere

Karl Larsen, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops

Eric Lofroth, B.C. Ministry of Environment, Victoria

Roger Packham, Wildlife Biologist (B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations; retired), 100 Mile House

Julie Steciw, B.C. Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Williams Lake

Karyn Sutherland, Evolve Extension, Kamloops

Stephen Symes, Worley Parsons, Inc., Calgary

Rich Weir, B.C. Ministry of Environment, Victoria (Chair)

Executive summary

The American Badger (Taxidea taxus) is a medium-sized, mottled yellow and tan carnivore that is relatively flattened and well developed for a digging lifestyle. Three subspecies of badger occur in Canada, where it is distributed from British Columbia’s Interior to southwestern Ontario. In British Columbia, all badgers are currently classified as the jeffersonii subspecies. This subspecies is listed federally as Endangered in Canada on Schedule 1 of the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA).Footnote 7 Two populations of this subspecies were recognized in 2012 by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): Western Population and Eastern Population. Both populations were designated as Endangered by COSEWIC in 2012 because each had less than 250 mature individuals. The American Badger is ranked nationally (at the species level only) as N4. In British Columbia, it is ranked collectively as S2 (imperiled) by the B.C. Conservation Data Centre, and the species is on the provincial Red list. The B.C. Conservation Framework ranks the species as a priority 1 under goal 3 (maintain the diversity of native species and ecosystems). Under the British Columbia Wildlife Act, the American Badger is protected from capture and killing, except under defense of property. It is listed as a species that requires special management attention to address the impacts of forest and range activities under the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA) and the impacts of oil and gas activities under the Oil and Gas Activities Act (OGAA) on Crown land (as described in the Identified Wildlife Management Strategy).

The primary habitat requirements for badgers are soil conditions suitable for digging and available prey populations. In British Columbia, the American Badger is typically associated with grassland and open forest ecosystems, which are most common at valley bottom elevations; however, badgers can be found at any elevation up to, and including, alpine areas, and in various types of forested and unforested ecosystems. American Badgers tend to prefer coherent soils comprised of coarse silts to fine sand with low coarse material content, usually in areas with glaciolacustrine, lacustrine, and fluvial parent materials. American Badgers are opportunistic hunters, preying on a wide variety of animals. Columbian Ground Squirrel (Urocitellus columbianus), Yellow-bellied Marmot (Marmota flaviventris), and microtine rodents are preferred prey.

Limiting factors include low lifetime reproductive capacity, reduced gene flow owing to isolation of populations within the province, low juvenile survivorship, and large home range size that increases exposure to threats (especially males and dispersing juveniles).

The main threat facing American Badgers in British Columbia is road mortality, which is the main cause of death within all studied populations. Other threats include habitat loss related to urban and commercial housing; cultivation agriculture, viniculture and orchards; mining and large-scale solar energy production; forest ingrowth and encroachment, resulting from fire suppression; and off-road vehicle use. American Badgers are reliant on prey populations that often face poisoning and are susceptible to secondary poisoning if contaminated prey are consumed.

The recovery (population and distribution) goal is to maintain or increase the Western and Eastern Populations to levels sufficient to ensure persistence over time, and to maintain the distribution of the species across the known range in British Columbia.

The following are the recovery objectives:

  1. to protect American Badgers and their habitat
  2. to more accurately estimate American Badger abundance
  3. to better understand prey ecology, history, and distribution
  4. to better understand distribution of preferred soil associations
  5. to improve understanding of genetic structure of American Badgers in the province
  6. to improve knowledge of American Badger distribution and abundance in poorly documented regions; and
  7. to increase public awareness and appreciation of American Badgers in British Columbia

Recovery feasibility summary

The recovery of the American Badger in British Columbia is considered technically and biologically feasible. However, there are unknowns regarding the feasibility of recovery based on the following four criteria that Environment and Climate Change Canada uses to establish recovery feasibility. In keeping with the precautionary principle, a recovery plan that addresses these unknowns has been prepared.

1. Individuals of the wildlife species that are capable of reproduction are available now or in the foreseeable future to sustain the population or improve its abundance.

Yes. There is clear evidence of continuous and ongoing reproduction by American Badgers throughout their range in British Columbia. American Badgers have low reproductive output compared to many other species and this may, in part, slow the pace of recovery; however, the ability to reproduce is not an impediment to recovery. Sufficient demographic data has likely been collected for American Badgers to complete a population viability analysis, which should indicate whether current estimated populations in British Columbia are able to withstand observed mortality rates.

2. Sufficient suitable habitat is available to support the species or could be made available through habitat management or restoration.

Yes. American Badgers are largely habitat generalists. Their main habitat requirement is suitable soil in which to dig burrows. Land use can affect American Badger occurrence by reducing availability of suitable soil types. Urban areas, industrial activities, and cultivation agriculture are the most significant sources of habitat loss to American Badgers in British Columbia. American Badgers are also reliant on prey populations. Habitat requirements of these species (mainly Columbian Ground Squirrels and Yellow-bellied Marmots) are less well known and may be more susceptible to land use decisions and habitat loss. In some areas, fire suppression has led to forest ingrowth and encroachment on grassland and open forest habitats, which are preferred by American Badgers. Restoration activities are ongoing to relieve this ingrowth and encroachment. Though slow and expensive work, this is helping to increase habitat available to both American Badgers and their prey. Ephemeral American Badger habitat is also created by mid-elevation logging activity and the species has likely benefited from the Mountain Pine Beetle infestation and subsequent logging throughout its range, particularly in the Cariboo region. These areas provide ephemerally suitable conditions to prey, especially Columbian Ground Squirrels, and are usually at a safer distance from main highways in valley bottoms where most American Badger mortality occurs.

3. The primary threats to the species or its habitat (including threats outside Canada) can be avoided or mitigated.

Unknown. The main threat facing American Badgers in British Columbia is road mortality. This threat cannot be avoided or removed. Some aspects making the animals particularly susceptible to road mortality can be lessened or mitigated. These include installing underpasses in areas of high road mortality incidence and reducing habitat attractants for American Badgers and their prey close to roadways. Ultimately, roads in the province will always be a population sink for American Badgers; the best way to overcome the threat is to ensure that robust source populations are located in areas removed from the main road threats.

4. Recovery techniques exist to achieve the population and distribution objectives or can be expected to be developed within a reasonable time frame.

Yes. Habitat conservation and private land stewardship are the keys to successful American Badger recovery in British Columbia, as this will ensure that populations are able to withstand road mortality and occasional extermination on private land. Mechanisms include Wildlife Habitat Areas, private land covenants, and fee-simple land purchases by land conservation organizations. Provincial and national parks within areas of American Badger occurrence (primarily valley bottoms) are likely too small to be effective tools relative to the species’ home ranges and population densities.

1 COSEWIC* species assessment information

Assessment summary – November 2012

Common name:* American Badger – jeffersonii subspecies – Western population

Scientific name:** Taxidea taxus jeffersonii

Status: Endangered

Reason for designation: Fewer than 250 mature badgers live in the Okanagan Valley–Cariboo region where they are vulnerable to increasing threats of mortality from roadkill and habitat loss associated with the change of open areas to urban or forest environments.

Occurrence: British Columbia

Status history: The species was considered a single unit and designated Not at Risk in 1979. Each subspecies was given a separate designation in May 2000; the jeffersonii subspecies was designated Endangered. In November 2012, the jeffersonii subspecies was further split into two populations (Western and Eastern populations), and the Western population was designated Endangered.

Assessment summary – November 2012

Common name:* American Badger – jeffersonii subspecies – Eastern population

Scientific name:** Taxidea taxus jeffersonii

Status: Endangered

Reason for designation: As few as 100 mature badgers live in the East Kootenay region where they are vulnerable to increasing threats from roadkill. The loss of open areas to forest succession and urban development is resulting in ongoing habitat decline.

Occurrence: British Columbia

Status history: The species was considered a single unit and designated Not at Risk in 1979. Each subspecies was given a separate designation in May 2000; the jeffersonii subspecies was designated Endangered. In November 2012, the jeffersonii subspecies was further split into two populations (Western and Eastern populations), and the Eastern population was designated Endangered.

* Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.

** Common and scientific names reported in this recovery plan follow the naming conventions of the B.C. Conservation Data Centre, which may be different from names reported by COSEWIC.

2 Species status information

American Badgera

Legal designation:

FRPA:b Species at Risk

OGAA:b Species at Risk

Wildlife Act:c Schedule A

SARA:d Schedule 1 Endangered (2003)

Conservation statuse

B.C. List: Red

B.C. Rank: S2 (2015)

National Rank: N4f (2012)

Global Rank: G5 (2012)

Other Subnational Ranks:g

Alberta: S4;

Saskatchewan: S3S4;

Manitoba: S4;

Ontario: S2.

B.C. Conservation framework (CF)h

Goal 1: Contribute to global efforts for species and ecosystem conservation.

Priority:j 6 (2009)

Goal 2: Prevent species and ecosystems from becoming at risk.

Priority: 6 (2009)

Goal 3: Maintain the diversity of native species and ecosystems.

Priority: 1 (2009)

CF Action Groups:i

Compile Status Report; Planning; List under Wildlife Act; Send to COSEWIC; Habitat Protection; Habitat Restoration; Private Land Stewardship; Species and Population Management.

aData source: B.C. Conservation Data Centre (2015) unless otherwise noted. Where the text discusses American Badger in British Columbia, these are assumed to be Taxidea taxus, jeffersonii subspecies unless otherwise noted.

b Species at Risk = a listed species that requires special management attention to address the impacts of forest and range activities on Crown land under the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA; Province of British Columbia 2002) and/or the impacts of oil and gas activities on Crown land under the Oil and Gas Activities Act (OGAA; Province of British Columbia 2008) as described in the Identified Wildlife Management Strategy (Province of British Columbia 2004).

c Schedule A = designated as wildlife under the Wildlife Act (Province of British Columbia 1982), which offers it protection from direct persecution and mortality.

d Schedule 1 = found on the List of Wildlife Species at Risk under the Species at Risk Act (SARA; Government of Canada 2002).

e Red: Includes any indigenous species or subspecies that have, or are candidates for, Extirpated, Endangered, or Threatened status in British Columbia. S = subnational; N = national; G = global; X = presumed extirpated; H = possibly extirpated; 1 = critically imperiled; 2 = imperiled; 3 = special concern, vulnerable to extirpation or extinction; 4 = apparently secure; 5 = demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure.

f All badger subspecies are collectively ranked nationally at the species level, Taxidea taxus.

g Data source: NatureServe (2015).

h Data source: B.C. Ministry of Environment (2009).

i Data source: B.C. Ministry of Environment (2016).

j Six-level scale: Priority 1 (highest priority) through to Priority 6 (lowest priority).

3 Species information

3.1 Species description

The American BadgerFootnote 8 (Taxidea taxus) is a medium-sized carnivore in the mammalian family Mustelidae, which includes (among other species) weasels, otters, martens, and wolverine. Adult males are 60–76 cm long, including the tail, and weigh up to 12 kg. Adult females are slightly smaller (Long 1973). Badgers are relatively flattened animals with a well-developed pectoral girdle and forelimbs well adapted for digging. The hind limbs are much smaller. Their fur is mottled yellow and tan over most of the body. Distinct black and white stripes on the head and characteristic black “badges” on each cheek give the animal its name.

3.2 Populations and distribution

American Badgers occur throughout much of western and central North America (Long 1973; Messick 1987; COSEWIC 2012; Figure 1 of part 2). Three subspecies of badgers occur in Canada, where it is distributed from British Columbia’s Interior to southwestern Ontario. Within British Columbia (B.C.), all American Badgers are considered to be the jeffersonii subspecies, within which two distinct populations are recognized: Western Population and Eastern Population (COSEWIC 2012). This distinction is supported both by biogeography and genetics (Ethier et al. 2012). Within each population, discrete Element Occurrences (EOs) are recognized. These are areas of core occurrences (based on reported sightings) and preferred habitat types.

Map of American Badger global distribution, please read long description

Figure 1 of part 2. American Badger global distribution showing ranges of four subspecies (from COSEWIC 2012; B.C. portion of distribution based on Weir and Almuedo 2010).

Long description

Figure 1 of part 2 shows the global range of four subspecies of the American Badgers occurring in North America. The jeffersonii subspecies range extends from southern British Columbia across the north-western United States, and along the coast of San Francisco. The taxus subspecies range includes southern Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, and extends from central United States to the Great Lakes. The jacksoni subspecies occurs in south western Ontario, Michigan, and Central Ohio. The berlandieri subspecies ranges from south central to western United States, and continues south to northern Oaxaca, Mexico.

Ethier et al. (2012) demonstrated that, in Canada, the jeffersonii subspecies is divided into two distinct genetic groups separated by the Selkirk and Monashee Mountains. The Western Population differed significantly from the Eastern Population. While American Badgers from the Eastern Population did not differ significantly from those in Montana, they did differ from American Badgers in Alberta despite sharing haplotypes with T.t. taxus populations (Ethier et al. 2012). American Badgers in the Western Population were found to be highly isolated from all other American Badger populations sampled by Ethier et al. (2012), although these researchers did not sample American Badgers from adjacent Washington State.

Although no historical population data exist for American Badgers in British Columbia, a long-term decline has almost certainly occurred; historical trapping records show the number of American Badgers trapped annually in the mid-1920s was greater than current population estimates (jeffersonii Badger Recovery Team 2008). Trap returns remained very low after the 1940s, although no data on trapping effort for American Badgers exist over these time periods. Legal trapping of American Badgers in the province was discontinued in 1968.

The Western Population occurs within Okanagan, Boundary, Thompson, Cariboo, and Nicola/Similkameen regions of south-central British Columbia (Figure 2 of part 2). Their range is from the east slopes of the Coast Mountains and Fraser River, west into the Monashee Mountains and Kettle River valley, and as far north as Williams Lake, B.C. Between 150 and 245 mature individuals are estimated to occur in the Western Population (Table 1 of part 2).

Table 1 of part 2. Status and description of American Badger populations in British Columbia (COSEWIC 2012)
Population Element occurrence Status and description Land tenurea

Western Population

Cariboo

70–90 mature individuals

Private land, Crown land

(Population 1)

Thompson

30–50 mature individuals

Private land, Crown land

Not applicable

Okanagan/Boundary

35–65 mature individuals

Private land, Crown land

Not applicable

Nicola/Similkameen

15–40 mature individuals

Private land, Crown land

Not applicable

Total Western Population:

150–245 mature individuals

Not applicable

Eastern Population

Rocky Mountain Trench

100–160 mature individuals, combined

Private land, Crown land

(Population 2)

Elk Valley

100–160 mature individuals, combined

Private land, Crown land

Not applicable

Creston/Yahk

100–160 mature individuals, combined

Private land, Crown land

Not applicable

Provincial Total

250–405 mature individuals

Not applicable

a Private land includes some Conservation Land holdings and fee-simple land holdings with conservation-based covenants. Crown land is predominantly provincial, but also includes some federal land.

The majority of the Eastern Population occurs in the Rocky Mountain Trench EO in the East Kootenay region of southeastern British Columbia (Figure 2 of part 2). Their range here extends from the United States border at Grasmere, B.C., north to Golden, B.C. (Kinley et al. 2013). The Elk Valley between the Rocky Mountain Trench and the Alberta border also supports American Badgers (Figure 2 of part 2), as does the Creston/Yahk area of the Central Kootenay region. Between 100 and 160 mature individuals are estimated to occur in the Eastern Population (Table 1 of part 2).

Map of American Badger distribution in British Columbia, please read long description

Figure 2 of part 2. American Badger distribution in British Columbia (after Weir and Almuedo 2010) showing Western Population (shaded yellow) and Eastern Population (shaded pink).

Finalized Element Occurrences are shown with hatching. The Nicola/Similkameen EO, in draft at time of publication, is shown with orange stippling (source: B.C. Ministry of Environment unpubl. data). The Creston Yahk EO has not been mapped. Black dots represent extralimital records of American Badgers and/or burrows.

Long description

Figure 2 of part 2 shows the American Badger distribution in British Columbia. It shows the Western population and Eastern population. In the Western population, 4 element occurrences are shown. On the north, Cariboo is shown with Thompson directly below and around it. South of both of these element occurrences is Nicola/Similkameen (draft) and Okanagan Boundary. Around the Western population, there are around 28 dots equally scattered representing extralimital records of the American Badger or its burrow. Directly east of the Western population, is the Eastern population. This population shows the element occurrences of Rocky Mountain Trench, which has the largest element occurrence and Elk Valley, which has the smallest element occurrence for this population. Creston Yahk is also named in the southern most point of the Eastern population but its element occurrence is not mapped. There are about 14 dots representing extralimital records of the American Badger or its burrow. About 5 of them are bordering the western part of the Rocky Mountain Trench element occurrence and around 6 dots are bordering the western part of Creston. The remaining 3 dots are on the northern end of the Eastern population.

American Badgers in the Elk Valley may be more closely related to the T.t. taxus subspecies than T.t. jeffersonii. Both Kyle et al. (2004) and Ethier et al. (2012) stated that the subspecies boundary coincides with the Continental Divide along the British Columbia/Alberta border, but neither study sampled American Badgers from the Elk Valley. Several mountain passes across this border are at relatively low elevations and well within the movement capabilities of American Badgers.

The landscape conditions between the Western and Eastern populations are generally unfavourable to American Badgers. The Interior Cedar–Hemlock biogeoclimatic zone, which predominates in the mountains between the two populations, generally does not support American Badgers or their preferred prey. The long distance of unsuitable habitat in the Selkirk and Monashee Mountain ranges (which run north-to-south) is considered a barrier between the two populations in the province (COSEWIC 2012). Early seral forests, resulting from forestry and fire, and an extensive forestry road network are thought to facilitate occupation by American Badgers and their prey within some areas between the populations (e.g., the Darkwoods property south of Nelson, B.C.; T. Kinley, pers. comm., [2012]). Several historic records of American Badger exist from the Pend d’Oreille valley south of Trail, B.C., but no American Badgers are thought to occur there now (T. Kinley, pers. comm., [2012]). American Badgers in adjacent jurisdictions are generally considered secure, though the taxus subspecies in the Canadian prairie provinces was assessed as a Species of Special Concern in Canada (COSEWIC 2012), and the Ontario jacksonii subspecies is federally listed on SARA Schedule 1 as Endangered.

3.3 Habitat and biological needs of the American Badger

The primary requirements for American Badgers are soil conditions suitable for digging and available prey populations (Rahme et al. 1995; Table 2 of part 2). American Badger habitat associations may otherwise be very plastic. American Badgers have been found in many environments—from hot, dry grassland, valley-bottom habitat to alpine tundra; however, they most commonly occur in grasslands, fields, or open-canopied forests (Apps et al. 2002; Hoodicoff 2003; Weir et al. 2003; Kinley and Newhouse 2008; Klafki 2014).

American Badgers are unusual carnivores in that they excavate burrows in pursuit and capture of food and to create their own security cover for resting and reproduction. American Badgers dig and re-use many burrows throughout their territory, but as solitary carnivores, they do not share burrows with other individuals, except for reproductive females with kits. American Badgers tend to prefer burrowing into soils with textures ranging from coarse silts to fine sand with low coarse material content (Messick and Hornocker 1981; Messick 1987; Apps et al. 2002; Hoodicoff 2003; Weir et al. 2003; Hoodicoff and Packham 2007; Duquette 2008; Ethier et al. 2010; Kinley et al. 2013). Well-developed soils on unconsolidated sediments >1 m deep are important for American Badgers because these soils retain structure when burrowed into, are also required by prey, and provide energy-efficient burrowing and thermoregulatory advantages (Symes 2013). Glaciolacustrine, lacustrine, fluvial, and aeolian parent materials tend to be preferred. Brunisol and chernozems are the soil types (see Soil Classification Working Group 1998 for definitions) usually selected for burrowing (Apps et al. 2002; Hoodicoff and Packham 2007; Kinley et al. 2013; Klafki 2014).

American Badger habitat traditionally has been considered grassland, steppe, and open forest (Messick and Hornocker 1981; Messick 1987). They also use open or cleared areas within forested environments (Apps et al. 2002; Hoodicoff 2003; Jannett et al. 2007; Weir and Almuedo 2010).

American Badgers often occur close to linear corridors, including roads, fencerows, field edges, and hedgerows (Warner and Ver Steeg 1995; Apps et al. 2002; Duquette 2008). This tendency is particularly true in forested areas, where American Badgers likely follow roads to access prey populations that have colonized forest openings created by forestry or wildfire. The attraction of suitable soil conditions typically found alongside roads can lead to increased road mortality. American Badgers do not typically inhabit cultivated fields (Messick and Hornocker 1981) but use the uncultivated areas around the fields (Warner and Ver Steeg 1995; Duquette 2008) and are often associated with agricultural habitat types (Kierepka and Latch 2015).

Within forested landscapes, American Badgers use early seral, non-forested or open-forest patches created by forestry activities (i.e., recent cutblocks), wildfire, insect outbreaks (e.g., mountain pine beetle) and ski developments (Weir et al. 2003; Kinley and Newhouse 2008). Predictive habitat modelling in the East Kootenay region identified a broad range of habitat features, including low elevation, shallow slope, low crown closure, brunisol soils with low amounts of colluvial material, and high solar radiation (Kinley et al. 2013). In the Cariboo region, American Badgers may be associated with wetland habitats (Hoodicoff and Packham 2007; Klafki 2014).

Table 2 of part 2. Summary of essential functions, features, and attributes of American Badger habitat in British Columbia
Life stage Functiona Feature(s)b Attribute(s)c

Adults

Feeding/foraging

Suitable prey

Colonial fossorial rodents; primarily Columbian Ground Squirrels (where present). Non-forested to open forest sites with well-developed grass or forb community. Typically in valley bottom locations but also in mid-elevation forest clearings (resulting from forestry) and alpine environments.

Not applicable

Denning (security, thermal, reproductive cover)

Unconsolidated sediments >1 m deep and suitable for denning

Preferred soil types include: Brunisols and Chernozems on Aeolian, Glacio-lacustrine, Lacustrine and Fluvial parent materials, with low coarse fragments.

Often adjacent to large rodent burrow complexes, and often (but not always) well-removed from human disturbance.

Juveniles

Dispersal

Continuous habitat and/or corridors that are not unduly impeded by anthropogenic barriers, such as major roadways and large developed areas.

Typically lower relief valley bottom grasslands and open forests in the Bunchgrass, Ponderosa Pine, and Interior Douglas Fir biogeoclimatic zones, but also mid-elevation forest clearings up to and including the Alpine biogeoclimatic zone.

Adult female

Reproduction

Male Badgers

Female Badgers are induced ovulators (multiple breedings required to induce ovulation), so access to multiple males may be necessary. This may be a challenge in low-density populations.

Adult male

Reproduction

Female Badgers

Male Badger occurrence during breeding season (June–July) is a function of search for females. Especially in low-density populations, this can lead to large home ranges and Badger occurrences in atypical habitats

a Function: a life-cycle process of the species (e.g., include either animal or plant examples: spawning, breeding, denning, nursery, rearing, feeding/foraging and migration; flowering, fruiting, seed dispersing, germinating, seedling development).

b Feature: the essential structural components of the habitat required by the species.

c Attribute: the building blocks or measurable characteristics of a feature.

American Badgers are opportunistic hunters, preying on a wide variety of animals. Gut and scat analyses from the East Kootenay, Thompson, and Cariboo regions revealed that American Badgers consume Columbian Ground Squirrel (Urocitellus columbianus), Yellow-bellied Marmot (Marmota flaviventris), Northern Pocket Gopher (Thomomys talpoides), Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), leporids (rabbits and hares), various microtine rodents (e.g., voles), insects, birds, reptiles, and amphibians (Newhouse 2006; Hoodicoff 2003; Hoodicoff and Packham 2007; Kinley and Newhouse 2008). Small mammals, particularly Columbian Ground Squirrels, form the majority of the American Badger diet. Where they occur, Yellow-bellied Marmots are also an important prey species. The Northern Pocket Gopher is found throughout much of the American Badger’s range, but its role as a prey species appears relatively minor (Hoodicoff 2003). Birds are likely rare prey items, although American Badgers could be regular nest predators of ground-nesting birds.

American Badgers have much larger home ranges in British Columbia than elsewhere (Table 3 of part 2). Factors contributing to this difference may include low prey densities (food searching) and low American Badger densities (mate searching). Males typically have much larger home ranges than females and most movement occurs in the summer months during breeding season. Of the 16 American Badgers radio-tagged by Klafki (2014) in the Cariboo, 12 had a major highway bisecting the home range, 3 had at least one paved secondary road, and 1 had gravel roads.

Lifetime movements by individuals can be very high. An adult male American Badger killed on the Trans-Canada Highway west of Kamloops was found to be in otherwise excellent condition. This American Badger was originally captured as an orphaned juvenile in the Cariboo region and released near 100 Mile House. This represents a straight-line distance of at least 100 km from point of release to point of death (R. Weir, R. Klafki, and R. Packham, unpublished data).

Table 3 of part 2. Mean annual home range sizesa (km2) of male (M) and female (F) American Badgers in North America.
British Columbia
Location Minimum convex polygon M Minimum convex polygon F 95% Fixed kernel M 95% Fixed kernel F Sample size (N)
M
Sample size (N)
F
Source

East Kootenay

315

34.2

67.1

17.4

9

7

Newhouse (2006)

Thompson

87.9

10.5

32.7

15.6

8

1

Weir et al. (2003); Hoodicoff et al. (2009)

Cariboo: summer only

Not applicable Not applicable

163.4 (87.7*)

23.2 (14.9*)

5

10

Klafki (2014)

Cariboo: winter only

Not applicable Not applicable

3.93 (3.65ⱡ)

3.4

(2.9ⱡ)

8

12

Symes (2013)

Cariboo: winter only

Not applicable Not applicable

26.6 (12.2*)

2.2 (1.6*)

2

7

Klafki (2014)

Table 3 of part 2. Mean annual home range sizesa (km2) of male (M) and female (F) American Badgers in North America.
Range-wide
Location Minimum convex polygon
M
Minimum convex polygon
F
95% Fixed kernel
M
95% Fixed kernel
F
Sample size (N)
M
Sample size (N)
F
Source

Illinois

35.6 (18.1*)

17.7 (9.8*)

49.4 (25.8*)

16.4 (8.4*)

5

9

Duquette (2008); Warner and Ver Steeg (1995)b

Ohio

3.2

(2.9*)

4.9 (1.2*)

3.6 (4.9*)

7.1 (2.2*)

3

2

Duquette (2008)

Northwest Utah

5.8

2.4

Not applicable Not applicable

2

5

Lindzey (1978)

Wyoming

8

3

Not applicable Not applicable

18

15

Minta (1993)

Wyoming

Not applicable Not applicable

12

3.4

8

6

Goodrich and Buskirk (1998)

Southwest Idaho

2.4

1.6

Not applicable Not applicable

2

3

Messick and Hornocker (1981)

Eastern Washington

6.4

3.1

9.2

5.7

10

4

Paulson (2007)

a Calculated as either Minimum Convex Polygon or 95% Fixed Kernel. Sample size is the number of individuals contributing to the mean estimate; number of locations per individual varies.

b Duquette (2008) re-analyzed data from Illinois Badgers, originally collected by Warner and Ver Steeg (1995).

Standard Error; * Standard Deviation

3.4 Ecological role

MesocarnivoresFootnote 9, including American Badgers, play important ecological roles, influencing prey populations and often driving community structure (Roemer et al. 2009). American Badgers play a key role in the functioning of grassland and open forest ecosystems throughout their range in British Columbia. They have the ability to influence prey population numbers as a top-level predator (Proulx 2010; Proulx and MacKenzie 2012). American Badger diggings are considered highly beneficial to a wide range of soil functions, including water infiltration and aeration (Eldridge 2004, 2009). American Badger mounds alter soil chemistry and composition, creating patchy soils that help maintain shrub-steppe communities (Eldridge and Whitford 2009).

Burrows dug by American Badgers are used by other species, including Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia; Poulin et al. 2005) and Great Basin Spadefoot (Spea intermontana) as well as insects and spiders, reptiles, small mammals, and leporids (Messick and Hornocker 1981).

3.5 Limiting factors

Limiting factors are generally not human-induced and include characteristics that make the species or ecosystem less likely to respond to recovery/conservation efforts.

3.5.1 Low reproductive capacity

Similar to other large mustelids, American Badgers exhibit low reproductive capacity and net reproductive output can be low across an adult female’s lifetime (Messick and Hornocker 1981; Ruggiero et al. 1994; Rahme et al. 1995; Weaver et al. 1996). Females can breed in their first season but only 30–50% do so (Messick and Hornocker 1981). American Badgers exhibit delayed implantation, which offsets active gestation until the spring following breeding so that litters are born the following year. This factor further exacerbates low productivity by increasing the length of time that adults need to be alive to produce replacement offspring relative to species that breed and produce offspring in the same year. In the Rocky Mountain Trench, two of four females over 1 year of age had litters (Newhouse 2006). Males do not mature sexually until over 1 year of age (Messick 1987) but are not thought to contribute significantly to reproduction until more than 4 years old. The maximum age of badgers in the wild is believed to be 14 years, but most badgers live to age 3 or 4 (Messick and Hornocker 1981).

Badger litter sizes across North America vary from one to five kits (Lindzey 1982), with most litters in British Columbia averaging two or fewer kits (Table 4 of part 2). Females are capable of producing one litter each year, but data suggest this is rare. In the East Kootenay, 16 adult females fitted with radio-transmitters were monitored for 1–4 years, representing 33 possible litters; however, only 17 litters were observed and contribution to breeding was unequal among females (Kinley and Newhouse 2008).

Table 4 of part 2. Summary of American Badger litter sizes in British Columbia. For sightings data, all American Badger groups observed are assumed to be one female with kits (litter size = group size – 1)
Region Litters Mean Range Source

Rocky Mountain Trench

17

1.7

1–3

Radio-telemetry: 1996–2006; Kinley and Newhouse 2008

Rocky Mountain Trench

129

2

1–4

Sightings: 1996–2008; Kinley (unpublished data)

Thompson-Okanagan

57

1.6

1–4

Sightings: 1996–2008

Thompson-Okanagan

2

1.5

1-2

Radio-telemetry: 1999–2002;
R. Weir (unpublished data)

Cariboo

11

2.0

1–4

R. Klafki and R. Packham (radio-telemetry and unpublished sightings data)

Reproductive output may also be limited by other means. American Badgers are believed to be induced ovulators and ovulation may require multiple copulations (Messick and Hornocker 1981; Minta 1993). In addition, rates of fertilization may be increased by the number of copulations and male fitness (Messick and Hornocker 1981). Consequently, repeated copulations with experienced males may be necessary for fertilization to occur. American Badgers also exhibit delayed implantation that may be triggered by environmental conditions and prey availability (Messick 1987). If breeding opportunities are limited by low densities of mates (and therefore reduced encounters) and food sources are unreliable, overall reproductive output at the population level could be limited.

3.5.2 Genetic isolation

The genetic isolation of American Badger populations in the province (Ethier et al. 2012) has conservation implications for the species. Gene flow is an important aspect of conservation biology as part of maintaining connected populations over broad areas (Hanski 1999). Maintaining gene flow is a conservation action for many species, particularly wide-ranging carnivores (e.g., Cegelski et al. 2003; Tomasik and Cook 2005; Ernest et al. 2014) and is a concern for American Badgers (see Kierepka and Latch 2015). Despite American Badgers’ ability to move through a wide variety of landscapes, they are thought to be limited by the large distances across their provincial range. The two populations are separated by extensive unsuitable habitat in the Selkirk and Monashee mountain ranges and wet-belt/Interior Cedar–Hemlock zone forests (see Section 3.2). Reduced gene flow is exacerbated by anthropogenic disturbances, resulting in isolation from more contiguous populations in the United States, particularly the Okanogan Valley in Washington (Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group 2010) and limited rescue effect elsewhere in the province (COSEWIC 2012).

3.5.3 Low juvenile survivorship

Recruitment of juveniles into the adult population can be compromised by low juvenile survivorship. Potential predators include Coyote (Canis latrans), Grey Wolf (Canis lupus), domestic dog (Canis familiaris), Bobcat (Lynx rufus), Cougar (Puma concolor), Raven (Corvus corax), and large raptors (Messick 1987; Rahme et al. 1995; Newhouse 2006). In the East Kootenay region, annual survival rate for radio-tagged American Badgers to 1 year of age was 51% (n = 11 juveniles; 4 males, 7 females). In contrast, annual survival rate for adults over the same period was 81% (n = 19 adults; 10 males, 9 females; Kinley and Newhouse 2008). Both rates are comparable to other studies (Warner and Ver Steeg 1995; Hoff 1998) and are likely similar elsewhere in the province. Whether low recruitment of juveniles into the adult population limits the ability of American Badgers to repopulate areas following a decline is unknown.

3.5.4 Large home range size

As outlined in Section 3.3, badgers in British Columbia have very large home ranges, which expose them to considerable mortality risk and affects recovery of populations. Minta (1993) showed that the density of females dictates male home range size. Where female numbers are high, males need not range far for breeding opportunities. It is believed that food availability limits female home range size (Minta 1993; Goodrich and Buskirk 1998). Home range is included as a limiting factor because movements associated with large home ranges expose many individuals to increased mortality risk from highways. This biological factor (large home range) increases the human-caused threat (highway mortality). Large home range size can also artificially increase the public perception that American Badgers are more abundant than they actually are as a result of repeated sightings of the same individual American Badger in multiple locations.

4 Threats

Threats are defined as the proximate activities or processes that have caused, are causing, or may cause in the future the destruction, degradation, and/or impairment of the entity being assessed (population, species, community, or ecosystem) in the area of interest (global, national, or subnational) (Salafsky et al. 2008). For purposes of threat assessment, only present and future threats are considered.Footnote 10 Threats do not include limiting factors, which are presented in Section 3.5.Footnote 11

4.1 Threat assessment

The threat classification below is based on the IUCN–CMP (World Conservation Union–Conservation Measures Partnership) unified threats classification system and is consistent with methods used by the B.C. Conservation Data Centre. For a detailed description of the threat classification system, see the Open Standards website (Open Standards 2015). Threats may be observed, inferred, or projected to occur in the near term. Threats are characterized here in terms of scope, severity, and timing. Threat “impact” is calculated from scope and severity. For information on how the values are assigned, see Master et al. (2012) and table footnotes for details. Threats for the American Badger were assessed for Western Population (Table 5 of part 2) and Eastern Population (Table 6 of part 2) within British Columbia.

Table 5 of part 2. Threat classification table for the American Badger, Western Population, in British Columbia (i.e., the Okanagan, Thompson, Cariboo, Boundary, and Nicola regions). For footnotes, see Table 6
Threat #a Threat description Impactb Scopec Severityd Timinge

1

Residential and commercial development

Low

Small

Moderate

High

1.1

Housing and urban areas

Low

Small

Moderate

High

1.2

Commercial and industrial areas

Negligible

Negligible

Moderate

High

2

Agriculture and aquaculture

Low

Small

Slight

High

2.1

Annual and perennial non-timber crops

Low

Small

Slight

High

3

Energy production and mining

Negligible

Negligible

Moderate

High

3.2

Mining and quarrying

Negligible

Negligible

Moderate

High

4

Transportation and service corridors

Medium–Low

Pervasive

Moderate–Slight

High

4.1

Roads and railroads

Medium–Low

Pervasive

Moderate–Slight

High

5

Biological resource use

Low

Restricted

Slight

High

5.1

Hunting and collecting terrestrial animals

Low

Restricted

Slight

High

6

Human intrusions and disturbance

Negligible

Restricted

Negligible

High

6.1

Recreational activities

Negligible

Restricted

Negligible

High

7

Natural system modifications

Low

Large

Slight

High

7.1

Fire and fire suppression

Negligible

Negligible

Slight

High

7.3

Other ecosystem modifications

Low

Large

Slight

High

Table 6 of part 2. Threat classification table for the American Badger, Eastern Population, in British Columbia (i.e., the East Kootenay, Elk Valley, and Creston regions)
Threat #a Threat description Impactb Scopec Severityd Timinge

1

Residential and commercial development

Low

Small

Moderate–Slight

High

1.1

Housing and urban areas

Low

Small

Moderate–Slight

High

1.2

Commercial and industrial areas

Negligible

Negligible

Moderate–Slight

High

2

Agriculture and aquaculture

Negligible

Negligible

Slight

High

2.1

Annual and perennial non-timber crops

Negligible

Negligible

Slight

High

3

Energy production and mining

Low

Small

Moderate

High

3.2

Mining and quarrying

Low

Small

Moderate

High

3.3

Renewable energy

Low

Small

Moderate–Slight

Moderate

4

Transportation and service corridors

Low

Pervasive

Slight

High

4.1

Roads and railroads

Low

Pervasive

Slight

High

5

Biological resource use

Low

Restricted

Slight

High

5.1

Hunting and collecting terrestrial animals

Low

Restricted

Slight

High

6

Human intrusions and disturbance

Negligible

Restricted

Negligible

High

6.1

Recreational activities

Negligible

Restricted

Negligible

High

7

Natural system modifications

Low

Large

Slight

High

7.1

Fire and fire suppression

Low

Large

Slight

High

7.2

Dams and water management/use

Negligible

Negligible

Extreme

Low

7.3

Other ecosystem modifications

Low

Large–Restricted

Slight

High

a Threat numbers are provided for Level 1 threats (i.e., whole numbers) and Level 2 threats (i.e., numbers with decimals).

b Impact – The degree to which a species is observed, inferred, or suspected to be directly or indirectly threatened in the area of interest. The impact of each threat is based on severity and scope rating and considers only present and future threats. Threat impact reflects a reduction of a species population or decline/degradation of the area of an ecosystem. The median rate of population reduction or area decline for each combination of scope and severity corresponds to the following classes of threat impact: Very High (75% declines), High (40%), Medium (15%), and Low (3%). Unknown: used when impact cannot be determined (e.g., if values for either scope or severity are unknown); Not Calculated: impact not calculated as threat is outside the assessment time (e.g., timing is insignificant/negligible [past threat] or low [possible threat in long term]); Negligible: when scope or severity is negligible; Not a Threat: when severity is scored as neutral or potential benefit.

c Scope – Proportion of the species that can reasonably be expected to be affected by the threat within 10 years. Usually measured as a proportion of the species’ population in the area of interest (Pervasive = 71–100%; Large = 31–70%; Restricted = 11–30%; Small = 1–10%; Negligible < 1%).

d Severity – Within the scope, the level of damage to the species from the threat that can reasonably be expected to be affected by the threat within a 10-year or 3-generation time frame. For this species, a generation time of 4 years was used, resulting in severity being scored over a 12-year time frame. This varies slightly from the time frame used by COSEWIC (2012). Usually measured as the degree of reduction of the species’ population (Extreme = 71–100%; Serious = 31–70%; Moderate = 11–30%; Slight = 1–10%; Negligible < 1%; Neutral or Potential Benefit ≥ 0%).

e Timing – High = continuing; Moderate = only in the future (could happen in the short term [< 10 years or 3 generations]) or now suspended (could come back in the short term); Low = only in the future (could happen in the long term) or now suspended (could come back in the long term); Insignificant/Negligible = only in the past and unlikely to return, or no direct effect but limiting.

4.2 Description of threats

The overall province-wide Threat Impact for this species is High for the Western Population and Medium for the Eastern Population.Footnote 12 This overall threat considers the cumulative impacts of multiple threats. The greatest threat for both Western (Table 5 of part 2) and Eastern (Table 6 of part 2) populations is Threat 4.1 (Transportation and service corridors: Roads and railroads). Threats differ slightly between the two populations. For example, two threats face the Eastern Population but not the Western Population—that is, Threat 3.3 (Renewable energy) and Threat 7.2 (Dams and water management/use). In addition, threat scope and severity differs between the two populations for some threats; in particular, the scope of threats varies in relation to the size difference between the two populations. For example, a 10 km2 mine development would represent a much higher percentage of total occupancy area for the smaller Eastern Population than for the larger Western Population, and thus a greater impact.

Threat severity was scored over a 12-year time frame, based on an updated generation time of 4 years. This estimate, which was the result of expert opinion during discussion at the B.C. Badger Recovery Team meeting held in June 2015, varies slightly from the previous 10-year time frame used by COSEWIC (2012).

Threat details are discussed below under the Threat Level 1 headings.

4.2.1 Medium and medium–low threats
Threat 4. Transportation and service corridors

4.1 Roads and railroads

This threat scored Medium–Low in the Western Population and Low in the Eastern Population.

Road mortality is the single greatest threat to American Badgers in British Columbia, and likely elsewhere. American Badgers are particularly susceptible to road mortality. Some reasons for this include:

Most studies of American Badgers in British Columbia have documented high road mortality rates, although it appears lower in the East Kootenay region, possibly because of lower traffic volumes (Table 7 of part 2). In 2015 alone, 26 road mortalities were collected by the Ministry of Environment (R. Weir, unpublished data); several more road mortalities likely went unreported. This represents 8.7% of the conservatively estimated population of 250 mature American Badgers, and given the high probability of under-detection, the actual proportion of the population lost to roads each year is likely higher. Road mortality is also the main source of non-hunting or trapping mortality for American Badgers elsewhere in the distribution (Messick 1987; Duquette 2008; Ontario Badger Recovery Team 2010; Kierepka and Latch 2015). Conversely, Paulson (2007) reported no road mortalities among 12 radio-tagged American Badgers over 2 years in eastern Washington but attributed this to very low road density in the study area. Railways are also a source of mortality for American Badgers (Kinley and Newhouse 2008) but at a much lower rate.

Table 7 of part 2. Rates of road mortality from radio-telemetry studies of American Badgers in British Columbia
Percentage Region Source

85% (11 of 13 radio-tagged)

Thompson/Okanagan

Weir et al. 2005, R.D. Weir unpubl. data

50% (8 of 16 radio-tagged)

Cariboo

Klafki 2014

33% (4 of 12 radio-tagged adults, translocated from northwestern Montana, 2004–2006)

East Kootenay

Kinley and Newhouse 2008

19.0% (4 of 21 adults resident in East Kootenay, 1996–2002)

East Kootenay

Kinley and Newhouse 2008

4.2.2 Low threats
Threat 1. Residential and commercial development

1.1 Housing and urban areas/1.2 Commercial and industrial areas

American Badgers have lost significant amounts of habitat to both residential and commercial/industrial development throughout their range in British Columbia. This loss includes suitable burrowing and foraging habitat as well as disruptions to connectivity. Large urban centres included within the American Badger’s range are Kelowna and Kamloops; smaller areas include Vernon, Penticton, and Cranbrook. Loss and degradation of habitat (particularly in the Okanagan) is likely in areas that continue to experience increases in human population (COSEWIC 2012). American Badgers occur occasionally within urban areas, but are usually viewed as problem wildlife by some members of the public in these situations (see Threat 5.1.3). Municipalities can partially address this relatively low threat by incorporating badger habitat (particularly movement corridors) into official community plans as a Development Permit Area under the provincial Land Act (e.g., Regional District of East Kootenay 2008).

Threat 2. Agriculture and aquaculture

2.1 Annual and perennial non-timber crops

American Badgers are known to avoid cultivated fields within agricultural areas (Duquette et al. 2014). In Saskatchewan, American Badgers are thought to use less than 2% of cultivation agricultural areas (COSEWIC 2012), and instead use the unplanted areas between fields and along roadways. Although American Badgers may at times travel through fields, the extent of these movements has not been quantified; however, prey species are unlikely to occur within the field or crop. Viniculture and orchards are likely less disruptive to American Badgers but still largely exclude prey populations. No estimates are available on the amount of new conversions to annual and perennial non-timber crops, but these activities are thought to have a Low impact to American Badgers.

Threat 3. Energy production and mining

3.2 Mining and quarrying

Mines and quarries have the potential to affect American Badger habitat and prey through habitat loss, loss of prey, and disruption of movement corridors. Large mines, especially those at the preferred valley-bottom locations, can pose a threat to local American Badger populations. Smaller quarries and gravel pits will likely have a lesser impact but can still alter movements and affect local habitat quality.

3.3 Renewable energy

Solar farms are being proposed and established in the East Kootenay region of British Columbia. Proposed sites include native grassland and open forest areas, which are the preferred habitat type of American Badgers. The potential effects of these installations are not clear and poorly studied for wildlife (Lovich and Ennen 2011; Hernandez et al. 2013; Northrup and Wittemyer 2013). Some potential impacts include altered behaviour and movement and loss of prey species, although whether fossorial prey are likely to persist below utility-scale solar farms is uncertain. Habitat alienation rates may be similar to cultivation agriculture or orchard/viniculture situations. This threat is likely only to occur in the East Kootenay region where photovoltaic potential and mean solar insolation are high enough to warrant installations (Natural Resources Canada 2015). No solar installations are known from the Western Population, so this is not considered a threat to these American Badgers at this time.

Threat 5. Biological resource use

5.1 Hunting and collecting terrestrial animals

5.1.2 Unintentional effects:

American Badgers are at risk of mortality if they consume prey that contains rodenticides used for pest control of various fossorial rodent species (e.g., chlorophacinone, bromadiolone, strychnine) (Proulx 2011; Proulx and MacKenzie 2012). In southwestern Saskatchewan, American Badgers died within 9 days of feeding on Richardson’s Ground Squirrels (Urocittelus richardsonii) treated with chlorophacinone (Proulx et al. 2009, in Proulx and MacKenzie 2012). The number of American Badgers per kilometre of road (based on spotlighting surveys), where 20% of areas were treated with rodenticide, were significantly higher (2.2 times) than in areas with a 90% application (Proulx and MacKenzie 2012). Anticoagulant rodenticides are known to cause lethal secondary poisoning to birds of prey (Albert et al. 2009; Thomas et al. 2011; Rattner et al. 2012) and a wide range of other predators (Sanchez-Barbudo et al. 2012; Rattner et al. 2014; Sereiys et al. 2015).

Chlorophacinone, a “first-generation” anticoagulant, is typically less toxic to both target rodents and non-target predators than “second-generation” anticoagulants such as bromadiolone (Elliott et al. 2013), which kill target rodents more quickly and also persist longer, leaving predators and scavengers at greater risk of secondary poisoning. Sub-lethal effects, such as reduced reproductive output (B.C. Ministry of Environment 2014), are also of concern.

The extent and use of anticoagulant rodenticides that would expose American Badgers in British Columbia to potential threat is not known. Health Canada (2012) restricts the use of second-generation anticoagulants to indoor locations or against the outside walls of buildings. American Badgers are most likely to encounter prey killed with first-generation anticoagulant in fields; nevertheless, even these less toxic pesticides are lethal to secondary consumers (Proulx and MacKenzie 2012) and the regulations governing their use receive little to no enforcement.

The availability and use of strychnine in British Columbia is uncertain. Although legal to use, amounts sold and applied are not tracked. Strychnine is a toxic alkaloid that causes death through unimpeded muscle stimulation. Its use in any application has been described as inhumane and contravenes animal welfare guidelines (Proulx and Rodtka 2015; Proulx et al. 2015). It is highly persistent in carcasses and frequently kills non-target animals (Eason and Wickstrom 2001 in Proulx et al. 2015). Strychnine is readily available in Alberta and Saskatchewan, where it is commonly used for Grey Wolf and Coyote control, primarily by bounty hunters (Proulx and Rodtka 2015). British Columbia residents can purchase strychnine in Alberta to deploy on their property. While this likely can occur, the extent and frequency is unknown. This threat is mostly relevant to American Badgers in the Eastern Population.

5.1.3 Persecution/control:

Hunting and trapping of American Badgers is not permitted in British Columbia; however, American Badgers can be legally killed on private property in defense of that property. No data are available on how many are killed in defense of property or because land owners simply do not want them. Public outreach is thought to have increased appreciation of American Badgers in British Columbia and reduced extermination killing, but it is assumed to still occur at low levels.

Threat 7. Natural system modifications

7.1 Fire and fire suppression

Fire has been a key disturbance that maintains grassland and open forest ecosystems within most of the province’s Southern Interior (e.g., Daniels et al. 2011; Heyerdahl et al. 2011). This has led to the growth of young forests that were historically burned by frequent, low-intensity fires (Gayton 2001). Ingrown areas tend to be dense stands of small-diameter Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) that support much-reduced biodiversity (Gayton 2001), including reduced prey populations. The resulting increase in forest canopy closure may reduce habitat quality for prey species.

7.3 Other ecosystem modifications

The effects of invasive plants on American Badger conservation are poorly understood. Direct impacts to American Badgers are unlikely, although certain situations may impede American Badger movements to some extent. A more probable effect is that invasive plants influence prey populations, especially Columbian Ground Squirrels and small mammals, by outcompeting preferred forage species and/or reducing the open habitat conditions preferred by Columbian Ground Squirrels or the more structured native grasslands preferred by small mammals (Hoodicoff 2006).

Off-road vehicles affect grassland and open forest ecosystems preferred by American Badgers through the erosion and rutting of trails, which can contribute to an increase in invasive plants. This may indirectly affect American Badgers by reducing prey populations, especially in areas where Columbian Ground Squirrels are absent and American Badgers rely on microtine rodents, which are more sensitive to range condition than ground squirrels.

5 Recovery goal and objectives

5.1 Recovery (population and distribution) goal

The recovery (population and distribution) goal is to maintain or increase the Western and Eastern Populations to levels sufficient to ensure persistence over time, and to maintain the distribution of the species across the known range in British Columbia.

5.2 Rationale for the recovery (population and distribution) goal

The criterion for listing both populations of American Badgers in British Columbia as Endangered is low population size (Criterion D – Very small or restricted population size; COSEWIC 2012). The quantitative criteria threshold between Threatened and Endangered is more than 250 mature individuals. Approximately 150–245 mature adults are estimated to occur in the Western Population and 100–160 mature adults in the Eastern Population (Table 1 of part 2). American American Badger, jeffersonii subspecies Western and Eastern Populations were likely always small enough to be considered ‘naturally rare’; therefore, an objective to down-list the species to a status of Threatened or Special Concern is not appropriate.

Quantitative population goals cannot be set for either population units for a number of reasons. Estimated population sizes are based on sightings data and expert opinion and population inventory have not been conducted to verify those estimates. Furthermore, a population viability analysis not been completed to determine the population size sufficient to reduce extinction risk to acceptable levels. Population viability studies are needed to determine biologically appropriate population targets, and these studies are deemed feasible (E. Lofroth pers comm.). In future, the population component of the objective should be reassessed as new quantitative information comes available. Where targets fall below what is deemed viable for populations and/or the metapopulations that comprise them, deliberate attempts to increase them are warranted.

The distribution of American Badger, jeffersonii subspecies is represented by both a range of all known records divided into two populations (Western and Eastern), and core areas described by seven element occurrences (see Section 3.2 Population and Distribution). The goal of maintaining distribution applies to the whole range of the two populations, as additions and modifications to the element occurrences could occur in future. Those changes may result from consideration of new records, and re-consideration of transient, vagrant, and/or historical records.

American Badger habitat within the range is also dynamic. Wherever appropriate soil types occur, habitat suitability is mainly driven by prey (predominantly ground squirrel) availability and is often ephemeral or based on human disturbance (e.g., horse pastures, pipeline rights of way, logging landings, burns). American Badger habitat may expand or shift significantly in response to climate change and the conversion of unmanaged to managed forest landscapes; areas considered to have ephemeral or vagrant American Badger populations may become important supporting habitat over the next few decades (T. Kinley, pers. comm. 2013). Further, it is suspected that American Badger populations may be expanding north, potentially in response to climate change, deforestation trends and/or prey resources (C. Hoodicoff pers. comm. 2013). For these reasons, the potential range, i.e., as determined by records peripheral to, and/or outside of the best available understanding of current range, is included in the distribution component of the objective. In addition to accommodating the dynamic nature of American Badger habitat, preventing barriers to movement both within and between element occurrences in each of the two populations is an important component of this objective.

5.3 Recovery objectives

The suggested time frame for this recovery plan is 12 years (approximate time of 3 generations). The following recovery objectives should be revisited and updated when achieved and as new information becomes available.

  1. To protect American Badgers and their habitatFootnote 13
  2. To more accurately estimate American Badger abundance
  3. To better understand prey ecology, history, and distribution
  4. To better understand distribution of preferred soil associations
  5. To improve understanding of genetic structure of American Badgers
  6. To improve knowledge of American Badger distribution and abundance in poorly documented regions; and
  7. To increase public awareness and appreciation of American Badgers in British Columbia

6 Approaches to meet recovery objectives

6.1 Actions already completed or underway

The following actions are categorized according to the action groups outlined in the B.C. Conservation Framework (B.C. Ministry of Environment 2016). Status of the action group for this species is given in parentheses.

Compile status report (complete); Send to COSEWIC (complete)
Planning (in progress)
Habitat protection and private land stewardship (in progress)
Habitat restoration (in progress)
Table 8 of part 2. Existing mechanisms that afford habitat protection for American Badger in British Columbia
Existing mechanisms that afford
habitat protection

Threata or concern addressed Site

National parks

1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 3.2, 3.3, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1

Kootenay National Park

National Wildlife Areas (NWA) and migratory bird sanctuaries

1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 3.2, 3.3, 5.1

Vaseux–Bighorn NWA

Vaseux Migratory Bird Sanctuary

Columbia NWA

Provincial parks

1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 3.2, 3.3, 5.1, 6.1

Numerous provincial parks

Wildlife Management Areas (WMA)

1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 3.2, 3.3, 5.1

Columbia Wetlands WMA

East Side Columbia Lake WMA

South Okanagan WMA

McTaggart-Cowan/nsək’ɬniw’t WMA

Tranquille WMA

Dewdrop-Rosseau Creek WMA

Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHA)

2.1, 7.1

40 approved WHAs throughout distribution; see Table 10 of part 2 for a breakdown of approved Badger WHAs as of 2016

Private land purchase by land conservation organizations

1.1, 1.2, 3.2, 5.1

Numerous locations throughout distribution

Private land stewardship

2.1, 5.1

Numerous locations throughout distribution

Development permit areas under municipal official community plans (OCP)

1.1, 1.2,

Lake Windermere OCP (Regional District of East Kootenay 2008)

a Threat numbers according to the IUCN–CMP classification (see Table 6 for details).

6.2 Recovery planning table

Table 9 of part 2. Recovery actions for American Badger in both populations in British Columbia
Objective Conservation framework action group Actions to meet objectives Threata or concern addressed Priorityb

1

Habitat Protection

Encourage installment of suitable underpasses during road construction in areas of high American Badger occurrence.

4.1

Essential

1

Habitat Restoration

Identify key highway crossing locations, either from movement data or high number of road mortality incidents, to target priority locations for underpasses.

4.1

Essential

1

Species and Population Management

Reduce attractants for American Badgers and their prey near roads.

4.1

Essential

1

Private Land Stewardship

Promote private land stewardship for American Badgers, their habitat, and prey, particularly in areas well away from major roads and highways.

1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 5.1, 6.1

Essential

1

Habitat Restoration

Provide scientific support for grassland and open forest restoration in accordance with strategic range management objectives and values.

6.1, 7.1, 7.3

Essential

1

Habitat Protection

Establish and approve Wildlife Habitat Areas for American Badgers, especially in forest districts with low areas of current approved habitat.

4.1, 6.1, ,7.1

Essential

1, 7

Planning; Habitat Protection

Work with municipal and regional governments within American Badger distribution to include American Badger habitat as part of official community planning.

1.1, 1.2, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 6.1, 7.3

Essential

1

Species and Population Management

Work with road maintenance contractors to identify all badger road mortalities and map to highlight key problem locations and identify high-risk areas where mitigation would be most useful.

4.1

Necessary

1

Species and Population Management

Collaborate with Barn Owl Recovery Team to write a document outlining secondary poisoning concerns for predators. Target audience to include Integrated Pest Management Program and land owners applying rodenticides.

5.1

Necessary

1

Species and Population Management

Regularly test American Badger tissues (as available) for rodenticide exposure.

5.1

Necessary

2

Monitor Trends

Develop a reliable, cost-effective, and repeatable method for estimating American Badger abundance at a regional level.

Knowledge Gap

Essential

2

Monitor Trends

Continue to solicit and collect American Badger sightings, including road mortalities and fresh burrow diggings.

Knowledge Gap

Essential

2, 6

Monitor Trends

Maintain a single, province-wide database of American Badger sightings and occurrence records.

Knowledge Gap

Essential

2

Monitor Trends

Investigate methods to record and analyze American Badger sightings database (e.g., square map grid).

Knowledge Gap

Necessary

3

Monitor Trends

Better understand current and historic prey distribution, especially for Columbian Ground Squirrels.

Knowledge Gap

Necessary

3

Habitat Protection; Private Land Stewardship

Better understand impacts of invasive plants on prey abundance and distribution.

Knowledge Gap

Beneficial

4

Habitat Protection

Support work to update and complete soils mapping.

Knowledge Gap

Necessary

5

Species and Population Management

Encourage and cooperate with neighbouring jurisdictions to undertake American Badger conservation work, including genetics, movement, and survival.

Knowledge Gap

Necessary

5

Species and Population Management

Complete population viability analysis for American Badgers.

Knowledge Gap

Necessary

5

Species and Population Management

Cooperate with researchers to improve conservation genetics knowledge of American Badgers throughout their provincial distribution, making available samples wherever possible (priority regions: Nicola, Elk Valley, and Boundary).

Knowledge Gap

Essential

6

Habitat Protection

Conduct inventories in regions where American Badger abundance and distribution are poorly documented (priority: Nicola Region; also Elk Valley, Boundary).

Knowledge Gap

Essential

7

Habitat Protection; Private Land Stewardship, Monitor Trends

Work with private landowners, land managers, and other government officials to create awareness of American Badgers, their habitat, and threats.

1.1, 1.2, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 6.1, 7.3

Essential

7

Habitat Protection; Private Land Stewardship, Monitor Trends

Maintain and regularly update American Badger website.

All

Essential

a Threat numbers according to the IUCN–CMP classification (see Table 5 of part 2 and Table 6 of part 2 for details).

b Essential (urgent and important, needs to start immediately); Necessary (important but not urgent, action can start in 2–5 years); or Beneficial (action is beneficial and could start at any time that was feasible).

6.3 Narrative to support recovery planning table

Recommended actions have been categorized by B.C. Conservation Framework action groups.

6.3.1 Planning

Most planning efforts for American Badger are complete. The COSEWIC status report was updated in 2012 (COSEWIC 2012); the current recovery plan (this document) is the second version of the provincial plan.

Some of the most effective conservation actions may be realized at the municipal and regional levels, through official community plans. Because habitat loss and new roads are two of the most consistent threats facing American Badgers, development decisions and local planning can have a substantial effect on American Badger conservation. Inclusion of development permit areas that are specific to American Badgers can be very beneficial in maintaining suitable habitat or facilitating movement corridors through or adjacent to urban areas. For example, the Lake Windermere Official Community Plan (Regional District of East Kootenay 2008) includes a American Badger habitat and connectivity development permit area where any new development or upgrading requires the landowner to demonstrate the maintenance of American Badger habitat and connectivity through the area. More generalized, environmentally sensitive development permit areas are less effective but still potentially beneficial. The B.C. Badger Recovery Team should work with municipal and regional governments to ensure American Badgers are recognized and accounted for in all official community plans where American Badgers occur.

6.3.2 Monitor trends

The goal of maintaining or increasing American Badger numbers in both provincial populations requires a reliable means to estimate American Badger population size to measure success. To date, American Badger population estimates were primarily based on expert opinion. Only the Cariboo region has a bounded population estimate (i.e., population estimate with 95% confidence interval; Klafki 2014). Some trends may be discerned from opportunistic sightings reported by the public; however, the utility of these sightings to track population size or monitor trends is questionable without consistent solicitation of sightings. Therefore, the design a cost-effective means to track American Badger populations in British Columbia is a priority. Development of a population viability analysis is rated as “Essential” because this would advise the Recovery Team on whether road mortality rates are sustainable by the current populations or whether more immediate measures are required to offset this primary threat to American Badgers.

The population genetics work completed by Ethier et al. (2012) is important because it led to splitting of the T.t. jeffersonii subspecies into two populations (COSEWIC 2012); however, this work was based on fairly small sample sizes from a few selected areas within the American Badger’s provincial distribution. Very few or no samples were obtained in key areas such as Elk Valley, Nicola/Princeton, or the Cariboo. This work requires an update to include more samples from across the entire distribution. In particular, reasonable doubt exists over whether Elk Valley American Badgers are most closely allied to the jeffersonii or taxus subspecies.

6.3.3 Habitat protection and private land stewardship

Protecting American Badger habitat remains a priority for the species’ conservation in British Columbia. Private land stewardship plays a key role in maintaining provincial American Badger habitat because considerable amounts of American Badger habitat is privately owned. Significant advances in public attitudes toward American Badgers have been realized over the past 15 years. This work requires continually reinforcement and revision to ensure that persecution of American Badgers (Threat 5.1) does not increase and that high value is placed on native grasslands and open forests.

Ensuring the availability of quality, secure American Badger habitat well removed from highways is also important. The possibility of achieving this may vary across the American Badger’s provincial range, with most opportunities existing in the Cariboo and (to a lesser extent) the East Kootenay. Focusing land protection, stewardship, and habitat restoration activities away from highways serves to protect American Badgers from the main threat facing the population in British Columbia (road mortality; Threat 4.1). It will also create source population areas that will help offset the high level of mortality experienced by American Badgers with major roads in their home ranges.

General prohibitions of the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA; Section 32 and 33) apply to American Badger occurring on federal lands (Table 8 of part 2). Critical habitat that is identified in a final federal recovery strategy requires protection under SARA on federal and non-federal lands (per Sections 58 and 61). The “development permit area” designation available to municipal and regional planners may provide some level of habitat protection but should not be considered as permanent protection because official community plans are easily and frequently updated with rezoning applications. For this reason, it is necessary to complete a tally of current plans that acknowledge American Badger habitat and provide for its conservation.

Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHAs) under the Forest and Range Practices Act afford the only degree of habitat protection to American Badgers outside of national and provincial parks. Some forest districts have approved several WHAs, representing a significant amount of total habitat (Table 10 of part 2); however, some forest districts in which American Badgers face high levels of conservation concern (e.g., Okanagan Shuswap and Kamloops) also have few designated WHAs. Although suitable habitat in large, contiguous areas may not be available in some districts, approving the largest possible WHAs will provide the greatest benefit to American Badgers, given their large provincial home ranges.

The General Wildlife Measures (GWMs) within the IWMS account (Adams and Kinley 2004) note that maternal dens should receive protection priority over other burrows. However differentiating maternal dens from other dens can be difficult. Symes (2012:104) also concluded that maternal, as well as winter dens, have the highest conservation value. Features of these dens in the Cariboo region study area that differentiated them from other burrows are: “larger soil fans (plumes), higher horizontal cover, and were more often found with additional infrastructure (such as under roots, stumps, coarse woody debris, etc.) in wooded habitats.” Natal burrows also had numerous entrances. By comparison, Symes found summer (non-maternal) burrows “often had single entrances, smaller soil fans, low horizontal cover and were typically located without additional infrastructure in open habitats (such as grasslands and pastures).”

Table 10 of part 2. Approved Wildlife Habitat Areas for American Badger in British Columbia (B.C. Ministry of Environment 2015)
Forest district American Badger population # of WHAs Sizea (ha)
Total
Sizea (ha)
Max
Sizea (ha)
Min

100 Mile House

Western Population

21

1943

245

7

Arrow Boundary

Western Population

2

30

29

1

Kamloops

Western Population

6

42

17

2

Okanagan Shuswap

Western Population

2

4

2

2

Kootenay Lake

Eastern Population

1

4

4

4

Rocky Mountain

Eastern Population

8

850

236

9

Total

Not applicable

40

2873

245

1

a Rounded to nearest hectare.

6.3.4 Habitat restoration

All opportunities to facilitate road crossings should be explored. American Badgers are known to repeatedly cross major highways. Whenever highways are constructed, upgraded, or repaved within American Badger range, dry culvert underpasses should be part of this work. Larger regional initiatives to facilitate highway crossings for wildlife and connectivity across major transportation corridors should also include American Badgers as a species of concern. An example is the Elk Flathead Wildlife Enhancement Initiative under way in southeast British Columbia.

Forest ingrowth and encroachment, primarily related to exclusion of wildfire has led to the loss of habitat for American Badgers and their prey. Efforts to restore open forests and grasslands will benefit American Badgers, primarily through increased prey availability, especially Columbian Ground Squirrels. Habitat restoration has occurred mostly in the East Kootenay region through the Rocky Mountain Trench Ecosystem Restoration Program. To expand range values compatible with American Badger habitat requirements, it is necessary to encourage range management policies and ecological restoration initiatives on Crown tenures.

Habitat restoration activities can sometimes create apparent conflicts with the protection of other American Badger habitat features such as burrows. One previous example near Kimberley, B.C., resulted in abandoning a habitat restoration activity because of the likelihood that logging machinery would drive over numerous American Badger burrows (Hogg 2011). Although protection of burrows should be considered, especially known or suspected maternal dens, removing forest cover in known ingrown stands may take precedence because greater long-term habitat restoration benefits are achieved with only the potential loss of some burrows.

7 Species survival and recovery habitat

Survival/recovery habitat is defined as the habitat that is necessary for the survival or recovery of the species. This is the area that the species naturally occurs or depends on directly or indirectly to carry out its life-cycle processes or formerly occurred on and has the potential to be reintroduced.

7.1 Biophysical description of the species’ survival/recovery habitat

A description of the known biophysical features and their attributes of the species’ habitat that are required to support these life-cycle processes (functions) are provided in Section 3.3. Additional work required to fulfill habitat knowledge gaps are included in the recovery action table.

7.2 Spatial description of the species’ survival/recovery habitat

Although no maps specific to species’ survival/recovery habitat are included with this document, it is recommended to spatially describe these locations to mitigate habitat threats and to facilitate the actions for meeting the recovery (population and distribution) goals.

8 Measuring progress

The following performance measures provide a way to define and measure progress toward achieving the recovery (population and distribution) goal (Section 5.1):

The following additional performance measures provide a way to define and measure progress toward achieving each of the recovery objectives (Section 5.3)

Measurable(s) for objective 1

Measurable(s) for objective 2

Measurable(s) for objective 3

Measurable(s) for objective 4

Measurable(s) for objective 5

Measurable(s) for objective 6

Measurable(s) for objective 7

At least one presentation is given annually to a public organization (e.g., naturalist clubs, livestock associations). Time frame: ongoing

9 Effects on other species

American Badger effects on other species and their environment are generally positive (see also Section 3.4). As a top-level predator, American Badger have the ability influence prey populations, at least at the local level (Messick and Hornocker 1981; Crooks and Soulé 1999). Digging activity is considered beneficial for various soil attributes and functions (Eldridge 2004), such as water infiltration and soil aeration. This is especially beneficial in arid to semi-arid grassland ecosystems in which American Badgers are most common. Vacant burrows are used by several other species, many of which are also considered at risk. These include Burrowing Owl, Great Basin Gophersnake, and Great Basin Spadefoot, as well as arthropods, lizards, small mammals, and lagomorphs (Messick and Hornocker 1981). A large number of other species at risk also inhabit the arid and semi-arid grassland and open forest ecosystems that are important to American Badger survival/recovery; habitat protection efforts aimed at maintaining American Badger habitat will also benefit other species that occupy similar habitat types. Nevertheless, any strategies implemented to manage or create open ecosystems (e.g., removal of trees or encroaching vegetation) must consider co-occurring species at risk (i.e., Western Screech-Owl macfarlanei subspecies [Megascops kennicottii macfarlanei], and Yellow-breasted Chat [Icteria virens auricollis]) that may occupy forest and/or shrub habitats within respective regions.

10 References

Adams, I.T. and T.A. Kinley. 2004. Badger (Taxidea taxus jeffersonii). In Accounts and measures for managing identified wildlife: Accounts V. 2004. BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria, BC.

Albert, C.A., L.K. Wilson, P. Mineau, S. Trudeau, and J.E. Elliott. 2009. Anticoagulant rodenticides in three owl species from western Canada, 1988–2003. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 58:451–459.

Apps, C.D., N.J. Newhouse, and T.A. Kinley. 2002. Habitat associations of American Badgers in southeastern British Columbia. Can. J. Zool. 80:1228–1239.

B.C. Conservation Data Centre. 2015. B.C. Species and Ecosystems Explorer. B.C. Min. Environ., Victoria, BC. <http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/> [Accessed 08/2015]

B.C. Ministry of Environment. 2009. Conservation framework—Conservation priorities for species and ecosystems: primer. Ecosystems Br., Environ. Stewardship Div., Victoria, BC. <http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/plants-animals-and-ecosystems/species-ecosystems-at-risk/species-at-risk-documents/cf_primer.pdf> [Accessed 08/2015]

B.C. Ministry of Environment. 2014. Recovery plan for the Barn Owl (Tyto alba) in British Columbia. Prepared for the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC. <http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eirs/finishDownloadDocument.do?subdocumentId=9701> [Accessed 05/2016]

B.C. Ministry of Environment. 2015. Approved wildlife habitat areas. B.C. Min. Environ., Victoria, BC. <http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/frpa/iwms/wha.html> [Accessed 09/2015]

B.C. Ministry of Environment. 2016. Conservation framework summary: Taxidea taxus. B.C. Min. Environ., Victoria, BC. <http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/eswp/consFrwkRpt.do?id=15604> [Accessed 05/2016]

Cegelski, C.C., L.P. Waits, and N.J. Anderson. 2003. Assessing population structure and gene flow in Montana wolverines (Gulo gulo) using assignment-based approaches. Mol. Ecol. 12:2907–2918.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). 2012. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the American Badger Taxidea taxus in Canada. Ottawa, ON. <https://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr_blaireau_am_badger_1113_e.pdf> [Accessed 05/2016]

Crooks, K.R. and M.E. Soulé. 1999. Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system. Nature 400:563–566.

Daniels, L.D., T.B. Maertens, A.B.S. Shane, P.J. McCloskey, J.D. Cochrane, and R.W. Gray. 2011. Direct and indirect impacts of climate change on forests: three case studies from British Columbia. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 33:108–116.

Duquette, J.F. 2008. Population ecology of Badgers (Taxidea taxus) in Ohio. MSc thesis. Ohio State Univ., Columbus, OH.

Duquette, J.F., S.D. Gehrt, B. Ver Steeg, and R.E. Warner. 2014. Badger (Taxidea taxus) resource selection and spatial ecology in intensive agricultural landscapes. Am. Midl. Nat. 171:116–127.

Eldridge, D.J. 2004. Mounds of the American Badger (Taxidea taxus): significant features of North American shrub-steppe ecosystems. J. Mamm. 85:1060–1067.

Eldridge, D.J. 2009. Badger (Taxidea taxus) mounds affect soil physical and hydrological properties in a degraded shrub-steppe. Am. Midl. Nat. 161:350–358.

Eldridge, D.J. and W.G. Whitford. 2009. Badger (Taxidea taxus) disturbances increase soil heterogeneity in a degraded shrub-steppe ecosystem. J. Arid Environ. 73:66–73.

Ernest, H.B., T.W. Vickers, S.A. Morrison, M.R. Buchalski, and W.M. Boyce. 2014. Fractured genetic connectivity threatens a southern California puma (Puma concolor) population. PLOS One 9: e107985. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107985> [Accessed 05/2016]

Ethier, D.M., J.B. Sayers, and C.J. Kyle. 2010. SARRFO Final Report 2009–10: Understanding the ecological requirements of Ontario’s endangered population of American Badgers. Prepared for the World Wildlife Fund Canada, Toronto, ON.

Ethier, D.M., A. Laflèche, B.J. Swanson, J.J. Nocera, and C.J. Kyle. 2012. Population subdivision and peripheral isolation in American Badgers (Taxidea taxus) and implications for conservation planning in Canada. Can. J. Zool. 90:630–639.

Gayton, D.V. 2001. Ground work: basic concepts of ecological restoration in British Columbia. Southern Interior Forest Extension and Research Partnership, Kamloops, BC. SIFERP Series No. 3.

Goodrich, J.M. and S.W. Buskirk. 1998. Spacing and ecology of North American Badgers (Taxidea taxus) in a prairie-dog (Cynomys leucurus) complex. J. Mamm. 79:171–179.

Government of Canada. 2002. Species at Risk Act [S.C. 2002] c. 29. <http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/S-15.3/page-1.html> [Accessed 05/2016]

Hanski, I. 1999. Metapopulation ecology. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, UK.

Health Canada. 2012. New use restrictions for commercial class rodenticides in agricultural settings [webpage]. Consumer Product Safety, Ottawa, Ont. Fact sheet. <http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_fact-fiche/restriction-rodenticides/index-eng.php> [Accessed 11/2015]

Hernandez, R.R., S.B. Easter, M.L. Murphy-Mariscal, F.T. Maestre, M. Tavassoli, E.B. Allen, C.W. Barrows, J. Belnap, R. Ochoa-Hueso, S. Ravi, and M.F. Allen. 2013. Environmental impacts of utility-scale solar energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 29:766–779.

Heyerdahl, E.K., K. Lertzman, and C.M. Wong. 2011. Mixed-severity fire regimes in dry forests of southern interior British Columbia, Canada. Can. J. For. Res. 42:88–98.

Hoff, D.J. 1998. Integrated laboratory and field investigations assessing contaminant risk to American Badgers (Taxidea taxus) on the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge. Dissertation. Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC.

Hogg, M. 2011. Using commercial forestry for ecosystem restoration in sensitive Badger habitat. MSc thesis. Simon Fraser Univ., Burnaby, BC.

Hoodicoff, C.S. 2003. Ecology of the Badger (Taxidea taxus jeffersonii) in the Thompson region of British Columbia: implications for conservation. MSc thesis, Univ. Victoria, Victoria, BC.

Hoodicoff, C.S. 2006. Badger prey ecology: the ecology of six small mammals found in British Columbia. B.C. Min. Environ., Victoria, BC. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-109.

Hoodicoff, C.S. and R. Packham. 2007. Cariboo Region Badger project: year end report 2006–07. B.C. Ministry of Environment. 100 Mile House, BC.

Hoodicoff, C.S., K.W. Larsen, and R.D. Weir. 2009. Home range size and attributes for Badgers (Taxidea taxus jeffersonii) in south-central British Columbia, Canada. Am. Midl. Nat. 162:305–317.

Jannett, Jr., F.J., M.R. Broschart, L.H. Grim, and J.P. Schaberl. 2007. Northerly range extensions of mammalian species in Minnesota. Am. Midl. Nat. 158:168–176.

jeffersonii Badger Recovery Team. 2008. Recovery strategy for the Badger (Taxidea taxus) in British Columbia. B.C. Min. Environ., Victoria, BC.

Kierepka, E.M. and E.K. Latch. 2015. Fine-scale landscape genetics of the American Badger (Taxidea taxus): disentangling landscape effects and sampling artifacts in a poorly understood species. Heredity 116:33–43. <http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v116/n1/full/hdy201567a.html> [Accessed 05/2016]

Kinley, T.A. and N.J. Newhouse. 2008. Ecology and translocation-aided recovery of an endangered Badger population. J. Wildl. Manage. 72:113–122.

Kinley, T.A., J. Whittington, A.D. Dibb, and N.J. Newhouse. 2013. Badger resource selection in the Rocky Mountain Trench of British Columbia. J. Ecosys. Manage. 14(3):1–22.

Klafki, R.W. 2014. Road ecology of a northern population of Badger (Taxidea taxus) in British Columbia, Canada. MSc thesis. Thompson Rivers Univ., Kamloops, BC.

Kyle, C.J., R.D. Weir, N.J. Newhouse, H. Davis, and C. Strobeck. 2004. Genetic structure of sensitive and endangered north-western Badger populations (Taxidea taxus taxus and T. t. jeffersonii). J. Mamm. 85:633–639.

Lindzey, F.G. 1978. Movement patterns of badgers in northwestern Utah. J. Wildl. Manage. 42:418–422.

Lindzey, F.G. 1982. Badger. In Wild mammals of North America: biology, management and economics. J.A. Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer (eds.). John Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD. pp. 653–663.

Long, C.A. 1973. Taxidea taxus. Mamm. Sp. 26:1–4.

Lovich, J.E. and J.R. Ennen. 2011. Wildlife conservation and solar energy development in the desert southwest, united states. Bioscience 61:982–992.

Master, L.L., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Bittman, G.A. Hammerson, B. Heidel, L. Ramsay, K. Snow, A. Teucher, and A. Tomaino. 2012. NatureServe conservation status assessments: factors for evaluating species and ecosystems at risk. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. <http://www.natureserve.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/natureserveconservationstatusfactors_apr12_1.pdf> [Accessed 06/2015]

Messick, J.P. 1987. North American badger. In Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. M. Novak, J.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard, and M. Malloch (eds.). Ont. Fur Managers Fed. and Ont. Min. Nat. Res., Toronto, ON. pp. 587–597.

Messick, J.P. and M.G. Hornocker. 1981. Ecology of the badger in southwestern Idaho. Wildl. Monogr. No. 76.

Minta, S.C. 1993. Sexual differences in spatio-temporal interaction among Badgers. Oecologia 96:402–409.

Natural Resources Canada. 2015. Photovoltaic potential and solar resource maps of Canada. Nat. Res. Can. Ottawa, ON. <http://pv.nrcan.gc.ca> [Accessed 10/2015]

NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe explorer: an online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. <http://www.natureserve.org/explorer> [Accessed 08/2015]

Newhouse, N. 2006. East Kootenay Badger Project Summary: June 1996–June 2006. Columbia Basin Fish and Wildl. Comp. Program, Nelson, BC and Parks Can., Radium Hot Springs, BC.

Northrup, J.M. and G. Wittemyer. 2013. Characterising the impacts of emerging energy development on wildlife, with an eye towards mitigation. Ecol. Lett. 16:112–125.

Ontario American Badger Recovery Team. 2010. Recovery strategy for the American Badger (Taxidea taxus) in Ontario. Ont. Min. Nat. Res., Peterborough, ON.

Open Standards. 2015. Threats taxonomy. <http://cmp-openstandards.org/using-os/tools/threats-taxonomy/> [Accessed 10/2015]

Paulson, N.J. 2007. Spatial and habitat ecology of North American Badgers (Taxidea taxus) in a native shrub-steppe ecosystem of Eastern Washington. MSc thesis. Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA.

Poulin, R.G., L.D. Todd, K.M. Dohms, R.M. Brigham, and T.I. Wellicome. 2005. Factors associated with nest- and roost-burrow selection by burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) on the Canadian prairies. Can. J. Zool. 83:1373–1380.

Proulx, G. 2011. Field evidence of non-target and secondary poisoning by strychnine and chlorophacinone used to control Richardson’s ground squirrels in southwest Saskatchewan. In: Danyluk D, ed. Proceedings of the 9th Prairie Conservation and Endangered Species Conference: Patterns of Change; 25-27 Feb 2010, Winnipeg, MB, pp. 128–34.

Proulx, G. and N. MacKenzie. 2012. Relative abundance of American Badger (Taxidea taxus) and red fox (Vulpes vulpes) in two landscapes with high and low rodenticide poisoning levels. Integr. Zool. 7:41–47.

Proulx, G. and D. Rodtka. 2015. Predator bounties in western Canada cause animal suffering and compromise wildlife conservation efforts. Animals 5:1034–1046.

Proulx, G., R.K. Brook, M. Cattet, C. Darimont, and P.C. Paquet. 2015. Poisoning wolves with strychnine is unacceptable in experimental studies and conservation programmes. Environ. Cons. 43(1):1–2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0376892915000211 [Accessed 05/2016]

Province of British Columbia. 1982. Wildlife Act [RSBC 1996] c. 488. Queen’s Printer, Victoria, BC. <http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96488_01> [Accessed 08/2015]

Province of British Columbia. 2002. Forest and Range Practices Act [SBC 2002] c. 69. Queen’s Printer, Victoria, BC. <http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_02069_01> [Accessed 09/2015]

Province of British Columbia. 2004. Identified wildlife management strategy. B.C. Min. Environ., Victoria, BC. <http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/frpa/iwms/index.html> [Accessed 06/2015]

Province of British Columbia. 2008. Oil and Gas Activities Act [SBC 2008] c. 36. Queen’s Printer, Victoria, BC. <http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_08036_01> [Accessed 08/2015]

Rahme, A.H., A.S. Harestad, and F.L. Bunnell. 1995. Status of the badger in British Columbia. B.C. Min. Environ., Lands Parks, Victoria, BC. Wildl. Work. Rep. No. WR-72.

Rattner, B.A., K.E. Horak, R.S. Lazarus, K.M. Eisenreich, C.U. Meteyer, S.F. Volker, C.M. Campton, J.D. Eisemann, and J.J. Johnston. 2012. Assessment of toxicity and potential risk of the anticoagulant rodenticide diphacinone using eastern screech-owls (Megascops asio). Ecotoxicology 21:1–15.

Rattner B.A., R.S. Lazarus, J.E. Elliott, R.F. Shore, and N. van den Brink. 2014. Adverse outcome pathway and risks of anticoagulant rodenticides to predatory wildlife. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48:8433–8445.

Regional District of East Kootenay. 2008. Lake Windermere official community plan bylaw no. 2061. Reg. Distr. East Kootenay, Cranbrook, BC.

Roemer, G.W., M.E. Gomper, and B. Van Valkenburgh. 2009. The ecological role of the mammalian mesocarnivore. Bioscience 59:165–173.

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski (eds.). 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the western United States. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254.

Salafsky, N., D. Salzer, A.J. Stattersfield, C. Hilton-Taylor, R. Neugarten, S.H.M. Butchart, B. Collen, N. Cox, L.L. Master, S. O’Connor, and D. Wilkie. 2008. A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: unified classifications of threats and actions. Conserv. Biol. 22:897–911.

Sánchez-Barbudo, I.S., P.R. Camarero, and R. Mateo. 2012. Primary and secondary poisoning by anticoagulant rodenticides of non-target animals in Spain. Sci. Total Environ. 420:280–288.

Serieys, L.E.K., T.C. Armenta, J.G. Moriarty, E.E. Boydston, L.M. Lyren, R.H. Poppenga, K.R. Crooks, R.K. Wayne, and S.P.D. Riley. 2015. Anticoagulant rodenticides in urban bobcats: exposure, risk factors and potential effects based on a 16-year study. Ecotoxicology 24:844–862.

Soil Classification Working Group. 1998. The Canadian system of soil classification, third edition. NRC-CNRC Research Press, Publication 1646. Ottawa ON.

Symes, S. 2013. Winter ecology of the North American Badger (Taxidea taxus jeffersonii) in the Cariboo region of British Columbia. MSc thesis. Thompson Rivers Univ., Kamloops, BC.

Thomas, P.J., P. Mineau, R.F. Shore, L. Champoux, P.A. Martin, L.K. Wilson, G. Fitzgerald, and J.E. Elliott. 2011. Second generation anticoagulant rodenticides in predatory birds: probabilistic characterisation of toxic liver concentrations and implications for predatory bird populations in Canada. Environ. Int. 37:914–920.

Tomasik, E. and J.A. Cook. 2005. Mitochondrial phylogeography and conservation genetics of wolverine (Gulo gulo) of northwestern North America. J. Mamm. 86:386–396.

Warner, R.E. and B. Ver Steeg. 1995. Illinois badger studies. Dep. Nat. Res. Environ. Sc., Univ. Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL.

Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group. 2010. Washington connected landscapes project: statewide analysis. Wash. Dep. Fish Wildl., and. Dep. Transp., Olympia, WA.

Weaver, J.L., P.C. Paquet, and L.F. Ruggiero. 1996. Resilience and conservation of large carnivores in the Rocky Mountains. Conserv. Biol. 10:964–976.

Weir, R.D., and P.L. Almuedo. 2010. British Columbia’s Southern Interior: Badger Wildlife Habitat Decision Aid. B.C. J. Ecosys. Manage. 10:9–13.

Weir, R.D., H. Davis, and C. Hoodicoff. 2003. Conservation strategies for North American badgers in the Thompson and Okanagan regions: final report for the Thompson-Okanagan Badger Project. Artemis Wildlife Consultants, Armstrong, BC.

Personal communications

Kinley, T. Wildlife Biologist, Kootenay National Park, Radium, BC.

Page details

Date modified: