Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) COSEWIC assessment and status report 2014: appendix

Appendix

Appendix 1. Reported survival rate data for subpopulations of caribou within the the Northern Mountain DU (DU7), Central Mountain DU (DU8) and Southern Mountain DU (DU9) for calculation of generation length

Table summarizing data on reported survival rates (mean annual adult female) of subpopulations of caribou within the Northern Mountain, Central Mountain, and Southern Mountain designatable units, which were used to calculate generation length.
Southern Mountain DU
Subpopulation
Southern Mountain DU
Mean annual adult female survival rate ±SE1Footnote1annexe 1
Central Mountain DU
Subpopulation
Central Mountain DU
Mean annual adult female survival rateFootnote2Annexe 1
Northern Mountain DU
Subpopulation
Northern Mountain DU
Mean annual adult female survival rate
South Purcells 0,55 ± 0,10 Moberly 0,739 TelkwaFootnote3Annexe 1 0,883 (adult), 1998-2008
Nakusp 0,85 ± 0,04 Burnt Pine 0,857 ChisanaFootnote4Annexe 1 0,77 ± 0,06 (adult), 1989-1997
Columbia South 0,85 ± 0,04 Kennedy Siding 0,848 Wolf LakeFootnote4Annexe 1 0,89 ± 0,04 (adult), 1993-1997
Columbia North 0,81 ± 0,03 Quintette 0,915 AishihikFootnote4Annexe 1 0,87 (adult), 1991-1992
Frisby-Boulder 0,90 ± 0,10 Narraway (Bearhole/Redwillow) 0,806 Swan lakeFootnote3Annexe 1 0,90 ± 0,06, 2005-2007
Groundhog 0,78 ± 0,10 Narraway (Narraway) 0,828 Little RancheriaFootnote3Annexe 1 0,89 ± 0,05, 1996-2000
Wells Gray 0,84 ± 0,10 A la Peche 0,905 HorseranchFootnote3Annexe 1 0,88 ± 0,05, 1997-2000
Barkerville 0,88 ± 0,10 Redrock-Prairie Creek 0,859 Tweedsmuir-EntiakoFootnote5Annexe 1 0,83 (1984-2003, except 1988/1989, 1989/1990, 1991/1992)
North Cariboo Mountains 0,91 ± 0,10 Jasper 0,880 MuskwaFootnote6Annexe 1 0,85 (2000-2003)
Hart ranges 0,96 ± 0,10        
Mean 0,83 Mean 0,849 Mean 0,863

Appendix 2a. Estimates of total numbers and number of mature individuals for subpopulations in Northern Mountain DU (DU7) based on surveys conducted within the last 3 generations (27 years)

Table summarizing estimates of total numbers of caribou and numbers of mature individuals for caribou subpopulations in Northern Mountain designatable unit, based on surveys conducted within the last three generations. Data are presented separately for previous survey estimates within three generations and for most recent survey or estimate
Subpopulation

Previous survey estimates within 3 generations (27 years) Footnote1.1Annexe 2

Year

Previous survey estimates within 3 generations (27 years) Footnote1.1Annexe 2

Type

Previous survey estimates within 3 generations (27 years) Footnote1.1Annexe 2

%CI

Previous survey estimates within 3 generations (27 years) Footnote1.1Annexe 2

Total

Previous survey estimates within 3 generations (27 years) Footnote1.1Annexe 2

CI

Previous survey estimates within 3 generations (27 years) Footnote1.1Annexe 2

MatureFootnote2.1Annexe 2

Northern Yukon/Northwest Territories
Hart River
*1978 DM+Ex - 1 200Footnote4.1Annexe 2 - 914Footnote5.1Annexe 2
Northern Yukon/Northwest Territories
Clear Creek
- - - - - -
Northern Yukon/Northwest Territories
Bonnet Plume
- - - - - -
Northern Yukon/Northwest Territories
Redstone
- - - - - -
Northern Yukon/Northwest Territories
South Nahanni
2001 MR 95 1 432Footnote8Annexe 2 970-2 933 1 337
Northern Yukon/Northwest Territories
Coal River
*1997 DM+Ex - 450Footnote10Annexe 2 - 392
Northern Yukon/Northwest Territories
La Biche
- - - - - -
Southwest Yukon
ChisanaFootnote13Annexe 2
2003
2005
2007
MR
MR
MR
- 720
706
766
- 607
603
704
Southwest Yukon
Kluane
*1997
2003Footnote14Annexe 2
MR
DM
- 191
235
- 144
204
Southwest Yukon
Aishihik
1981
1991
1993Footnote15Annexe 2
1997
DM
DM
DM
SRQ



90
1 500
785
732
1 148



1 073-1 223
1 399Footnote16Annexe 2
732
515Footnote17Annexe 2
889
Southwest Yukon
Klaza
*1989
*2000
MR
DM+Ex
- 485Footnote18Annexe 2
700Footnote19Annexe 2
- 383Footnote20Annexe 2
609Footnote19Annexe 2
Central Yukon
Ethel lake
- - - - - -
Central Yukon
Moose Lake
- - - - - -
Central Yukon
Tay River
- - - - - -
Central Yukon
Tatchun
- - - - - -
Central Yukon
Pelly Herds
- - - - - -
Central Yukon
Finlayson
1986
1990
1996
1999
SRQ
SRQ
SRQ
SRQ
90
90
90
90
3 067
5 950
4 537
4 130
2 653-3 481
4 897-7 003
3 997-5 077
3 432-4 828
2 350
4 474
3 661
3 383
Southern Lakes Yukon
Wolf Lake
1987
1993
SRQ
SRQ
90
90
664Footnote24Annexe 2
1 249
531-797
1 099-1 399
551
1 130
Southern Lakes Yukon
Laberge
- - - - - -
Southern Lakes Yukon
Ibex
1998
2002
SRQ
DM
90 424
400
326-522 329
375
Southern Lakes Yukon
CarcrossFootnote25Annexe 2
1997
2003
SRQ
ED
90
90
403
750
278-527
465-1 200
312
675
Southern Lakes Yukon
AtlinFootnote25Annexe 2
1999 SRQ 90 809 666-951 679
Northwest BC
Swan LakeFootnote25Annexe 2
- - - - - -
Northwest BC
Little RancheriaFootnote27Annexe 2
*1988 SRQ 90 681Footnote28Annexe 2 545-817 560
Northwest BC
HorseranchFootnote25Annexe 2
- - - - - -
Northwest BC
Level Kawdy
- - - - - -
Northwest BC
Edziza
- - - - - -
Northwest BC
Tsenaglode
- - - - - -
Northwest BC
Spatsizi
- - - - - -
Northeast BC
Liard PlateauFootnote25Annexe 2
2005
2010
DM
DM
- 141
173
- 122
161
Northeast BC
Rabbit
*1996
*2000
DM
DM
- 354
636
- 287
564
Northeast BC
Muskwa
2001 DM - 658 - 602
Northeast BC
Gataga
- - - - - -
Northeast BC
Frog
- - - - - -
Northeast BC
Finlay
1994 DM - 193 - 170
Northeast BC
Mont Pink
- - - - - -
Northcentral BC
Graham
1989
2002
DM
DM

95
587
282

177-609
490
255
Northcentral BC
Chase
*1993
*2002
*2007
*2008
DM
MR
DM+FC
DM+FC
- 397
370
561
628
- 299
301
479
513
Northcentral BC
Wolverine
1996
2002
2004
2007
2008
2009
MR
MR
SRQ
DM+FC
DM+FC
DM+FC
- 361
471
369
375
349
378
- 324
352
299
314
297
335
Northcentral BC
Takla
1998 DM - 102 - 82Footnote42Annexe 2
West-central BC
Telkwa
1982
1983
1984
1985
1987
1994
1996
2002
2004
2006
2008
2009
2011
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM+Ex
- 71
68
67
48
40
15
15
5844
86
90
71
44
2647
- 62Footnote45Annexe 2
59
49
37Footnote46Annexe 2
33
12
8
40
62
66
64
39
40Footnote47Annexe 2
West-central BC
Tweedsmuir
1987 MR 90 471 316-872 433
West-central BC
Itcha-IlgachuzFootnote 50 Annexe 2
*1982
1985
1987
1989
1991
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2003
2007
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
- 711
985
933
1 175
1 408
1 136
1 327
2 121
2 165
2 862
2 861
1 784
- 514
730
675
848
1 110
843
993
1 564
1 494
2 119
2 161
1 547
West-central BC
Rainbows
1986
1987
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
- 117
103
178
127
106
107
120
108
- 95
92
162
118
103
94
100
86
West-central BC
Charlotte AlplandsFootnote53Annexe 2
1993
1994
1998
1999
2000
2001
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
DM
- 53
42
28
39
12
23
- 38
35
25
36
12
19

Appendix 2b. Estimates of total numbers and number of mature individuals for subpopulations in Northern Mountain DU (DU7) based on the most recent survey/ estimate.

Table summarizing estimates of total numbers of caribou and numbers of mature individuals for caribou subpopulations in Northern Mountain designatable unit, based on the most recent survey/ estimate.
Subpopulation

Most recent survey/ estimateFootnote1.1Annexe 2

Year

Most recent survey/ estimateFootnote1.1Annexe 2

%CI

Most recent survey/ estimateFootnote1.1Annexe 2

Survey estimate

TypeFootnote3.1Annexe 2

Most recent survey/ estimateFootnote1.1Annexe 2

Survey estimate

Total

Most recent survey/ estimateFootnote1.1Annexe 2

Survey estimate

CI

Most recent survey/ estimateFootnote1.1Annexe 2

Survey estimate

MatureFootnote2.1Annexe 2

Most recent survey/ estimateFootnote1.1Annexe 2

Population estimate

Total

Most recent survey/ estimateFootnote1.1Annexe 2

Population estimate

CI

Most recent survey/ estimateFootnote1.1Annexe 2

Population estimate

MatureFootnote 1 Annexe 2

Northern Yukon/Northwest Territories
Hart River
2006 90 MR 2 200 1 655-2 745 1 853 2 200 1 655-2 745 1 853
Northern Yukon/Northwest Territories
Clear Creek
2001 - SRQ+Ex 900 - 801 900 - 801
Northern Yukon/Northwest Territories
Bonnet Plume
1982 - AE - - 4 200Footnote6.1Annexe 2 5 000Footnote7Annexe 2 - 4 200Footnote6.1Annexe 2
Northern Yukon/Northwest Territories
Redstone
2012 - RT > 10 000 - > 7 300Footnote6.1Annexe 2 > 10 000 - > 7 300Footnote6.1Annexe 2
Northern Yukon/Northwest Territories
South Nahanni
2009 95 MR 2 105 1 591-3 029 1 886Footnote9Annexe 2 2 105 1 591-3 029 1 886Footnote9Annexe 2
Northern Yukon/Northwest Territories
Coal River
2008 - DM+Ex - - 413Footnote11Annexe 2 450Footnote11Annexe 2 - 413Footnote11Annexe 2
Northern Yukon/Northwest Territories
La Biche
1993 - DM+Ex - - 388Footnote12Annexe 2 450Footnote12Annexe 2 - 388Footnote12Annexe 2
Southwest Yukon
ChisanaFootnote13Annexe 2
2010 90 MR 682 622-832 587 682 622-832 587
Southwest Yukon
Kluane
2009 95 MR 181 165-197 163 181 165-197 163
Southwest Yukon
Aishihik
2009 95 MR 2 044 1 724-2 507 1 813 2 044 1 724-2 507 1 813
Southwest Yukon
Klaza
2012 - MR 1 180 952-
1 461
1 065 1 180 952-1 461 1 065
Central Yukon
Ethel lake
1993 - SRQ 316Footnote21Annexe 2 - 289Footnote21Annexe 2 316Footnote21Annexe 2 - 289Footnote21Annexe 2
Central Yukon
Moose Lake
1991Footnote22Annexe 2 - DM+Ex 300 - 270 300 - 270
Central Yukon
Tay River
1991 90 SRQ 3 758 3 187-4 329 2 907 3 758 3 187-4 329 2 907
Central Yukon
Tatchun
2000 - MR 521 - 415 521 - 415
Central Yukon
Pelly Herds
2002 - DM+Ex 1 000Footnote23Annexe 2 - 876 1 000Footnote23Annexe 2 - 876
Central Yukon
Finlayson
2007 90 SRQ 3 077 2 905-3 249 2 657 3 077 2 905-3 249 2 657
Southern Lakes Yukon
Wolf Lake
1998 90 SRQ 1 491 1 044-1 938 1 240 1 491 1 044-1 938 1 240
Southern Lakes Yukon
Laberge
2003 90 SRQ 200 100-300 176 200 100-300 176
Southern Lakes Yukon
Ibex
2008 90 SRQ 850 790-910 748
850 790-910 748
Southern Lakes Yukon
CarcrossFootnote25Annexe 2
2007 90 ED 775 642-935 674 775 642-935 674
Southern Lakes Yukon
AtlinFootnote25Annexe 2
2007 90 SRQ 777 641-913 666 600-1 000 - 514-857
Northwest BC
Swan LakeFootnote25Annexe 2
2007 - DM+Ex 600-800Footnote26Annexe 2 - 515-686 600-800Footnote26Annexe 2 - 515-686
Northwest BC
Little RancheriaFootnote27Annexe 2
1999 - SRQ +ExFootnote29Annexe 2 Footnote30Annexe 2 - - - 800-1 600 - 672-1 342Footnote29Annexe 2
Northwest BC
HorseranchFootnote25Annexe 2
2000 - DM+Ex 800-1 000Footnote31Annexe 2 - 680-850 800-1 000Footnote31Annexe 2 - 680-850
Northwest BC
Level Kawdy
1998 - DM+Ex 1 538Footnote32Annexe 2 - 1 239 1 538Footnote32Annexe 2 - 1 239
Northwest BC
Edziza
2006 - DM 151 - 140 151 - 140
Northwest BC
Tsenaglode
2008 - AE - - - 100-400 - 85-340Footnote33Annexe 2
Northwest BC
Spatsizi
1994 - DM+Ex 2 681Footnote34Annexe 2 - 2 258Footnote34Annexe 2 2 681Footnote34Annexe 2 - 2 258Footnote34Annexe 2
Northeast BC
Liard PlateauFootnote25Annexe 2
2011 - DM 151 - 140 151 - 140
Northeast BC
Rabbit
2007 - DM+Ex 1 133Footnote35Annexe 2 - 954 1 300 - 1 095
Northeast BC
Muskwa
2007 - DM+Ex 738Footnote36Annexe 2 - 611 1 000Footnote36Annexe 2 - 828
Northeast BC
Gataga
2000Footnote37Annexe 2 - DM 265 - 220 265 - 220
Northeast BC
Frog
2001Footnote38Annexe 2 - DM 237 - 199 237 - 199
Northeast BC
Finlay
2002 - SRQ 26 - 19 26 - 19
Northeast BC
Mont Pink
1993Footnote39Annexe 2 - DM 1 275 - 1 145 1 275 - 1 145
Northcentral BC
Graham
2009Footnote40Annexe 2 95 MR 708 311-1 558 637 708 311-1 558 637
Northcentral BC
Chase
2009Footnote41Annexe 2 - DM+FC 475 - 404 475 - 404
Northcentral BC
Wolverine
2010 - DM+FC 341 - 298 341 - 298
Northcentral BC
Takla
2004 - MR 122 - 98 122 - 98
West-central BC
Telkwa
2013 - DM+Ex 16 - 12 25Footnote48Annexe 2 - 19Footnote48Annexe 2
West-central BC
Tweedsmuir
2002 - DM+Ex 300Footnote49Annexe 2 - 248Footnote49Annexe 2 300Footnote49Annexe 2 - 248Footnote49Annexe 2
West-central BC
Itcha-IlgachuzFootnote 50 Annexe 2
2012 - MR 1 685 1 431-1 791 1 220 (990-1 550) 1 685Footnote51Annexe 2 1 431-1 791 1 220Footnote51Annexe 2
(990-1 550)
West-central BC
Rainbows
2008 - DM 50Footnote52Annexe 2 - 43Footnote52Annexe 2 50Footnote52Annexe 2 - 43Footnote52Annexe 2
West-central BC
Charlotte AlplandsFootnote53Annexe 2
2012Footnote54Annexe 2 - DM 7Footnote54Annexe 2 - 6Footnote54Annexe 2 7Footnote54Annexe 2 - 6Footnote54Annexe 2

Appendix 2c. Source documents for survey data in Appendix 2a and Appendix 2b

Appendix 2c. Source documents for survey data in Appendix 2a et 2b
Subpopulation Previous surveys (reference) Most recent survey year (reference)
Hart river Farnell and Russell, 1984 Hegel et al., 2013
Clear Creek N/A Hegel et al., 2013
Bonnet Plume N/A Farnell and Russell, 1984
Larter, 2012
Redstone N/A NT ENR, unpublished data
Larter, 2012
Nahanni South Environment Yukon, unpublished data Hegel et al., 2013
Rivière Coal N/A Hegel et al., 2013
Labiche N/A Hegel et al., 2013
Chisana Environment Yukon, unpublished data Hegel et al., 2013
Kluane Environment Yukon, unpublished data Hegel and Russell, 2010
Aishihik Hayes et al., 2003
(1997 – mature individuals) Environment Yukon, unpublished data
Hegel et Russell, 2010
Klaza (1989) Farnell et al., 1991
(2000) Environment Yukon, unpublished data
Hegel et al., 2013
Lac Ethel N/A Kuzyk and Farnell, 1997
Lac Moose N/A Kuzyk and Farnell, 1997
Rivière Tay N/A Kuzyk and Farnell, 1997
Tatchun N/A Hegel et al., 2013
Hardes de Pelly N/A Hegel et al., 2013
Finlayson (All - total) Adamczewski et al., 2007
(All – mature individuals) Environment Yukon, unpublished data
Adamczewski et al., 2007
Lac Wolf (1987) Farnell et McDonald, 1989
(1993 – total) Hayes et al., 2003
(1993 – mature individuals) Environment Yukon, unpublished data
(1998 – total) Hayes et al., 2003
(1998 – mature individuals) Hegel et al., 2013
Laberge N/A (2003 – total) Florkiewicz, 2008
(2003 – mature individuals)
Hegel et al., 2013
Ibex Environment Yukon, unpublished data Hegel et al., 2013
Carcross Environment Yukon, unpublished data (2007 – total) Florkiewicz, 2008
(2007 – mature individuals)
Hegel et al., 2013
Atlin Marshall 1999a Marshall 2007
Swan lake N/A BC MFLNRO, unpublished data
Little Rancheria Farnell et McDonald, 1990 Marshall 1999b
Horseranch N/A BC MFLNRO, unpublished data
Level Kawdy N/A Marshall 1999c
Edziza N/A BC MFLNRO, unpublished data
Tsenaglode N/A M. Williams, comm. pers., 2013
Spatsizi N/A Cichowski, 1994
Liard Plateau Powell, 2006 McNay et Giguere, 2013
Rabbit BC MFLNRO, unpublished data BC MFLNRO, unpublished data
Muskwa Tripp et al., 2006 BC MFLNRO, unpublished data
Gataga BC MFLNRO, unpublished data BC MFLNRO, unpublished data
Frog   BC MFLNRO, unpublished data
Finlay Wood 1994 Zimmerman et al., 2002
Pink Mountain BC MFLNRO, unpublished data BC MFLNRO, unpublished data
Graham (1989) Backmeyer, 1990
(2002) Culling et al., 2005
Culling et Culling, 2009
Chase (1993) Corbould, 1993
(2002) Zimmerman et al., 2002
(2007) Giguere and McNay, 2007
(2008) Giguere and McNay, 2008
McNay et al., 2009
Wolverine (1996) Wood, 1998
(2002) Zimmerman et al., 2002
(2004) Wilson et al., 2004a
(2007) Giguere and McNay, 2007
(2008) Giguere and McNay, 2008
(2009) McNay et al., 2009
McNay et al., 2010
Takla Poole et al., 2000 Wilson et al., 2004b
Telkwa BC MFLNRO, unpublished data BC MFLNRO, unpublished data
Tweedsmuir Cichowski and MacLean, 2005 BC MFLNRO, unpublished data
Itcha-Ilgachuz (1982-2000) Young and Freeman, 2001
(2002-2007) Roorda and Dielman, 2007
Wilson, 2012
Rainbows (1986-2000) Young and Freeman, 2001 Freeman, 2009
Charlotte Alplands Young et al., 2001 BC MFLNRO, unpublished data

Appendix 3. Estimates of total numbers and number of mature individuals for subpopulations in Central Mountain DU (DU8) based on surveys conducted 3 generations ago and 2 generations ago, and on the most recent survey.

Appendix 3. Estimates of total numbers and number of mature individuals for subpopulations in Central Mountain DU (DU8) based on surveys conducted 3 generations ago and 2 generations ago.
Sous-
population

Earliest, highest previous survey estimate within 3 generations (27 years)Footnote1.2Annexe 3,Footnote2.2Annexe 3

Year

Earliest, highest previous survey estimate within 3 generations (27 years)Footnote1.2Annexe 3,Footnote2.2Annexe 3

Total

Earliest, highest previous survey estimate within 3 generations (27 years)Footnote1.2Annexe 3,Footnote2.2Annexe 3

MatureFootnote4.2Annexe 3

Earliest, highest previous survey estimate within 2 generations (18 years)Footnote1.2Annexe 3,Footnote3.2Annexe 3

Year

Earliest, highest previous survey estimate within 2 generations (18 years)Footnote1.2Annexe 3,Footnote3.2Annexe 3

Total

Earliest, highest previous survey estimate within 2 generations (18 years)Footnote1.2Annexe 3,Footnote3.2Annexe 3

MatureFootnote4.2Annexe 3

Scott
Scott East
2007 23 18 2007 23 18
Scott
Scott West
2007 25Footnote5.2Annexe 3 19Footnote5.2Annexe 3 2007 25Footnote5.2Annexe 3 19Footnote5.2Annexe 3
Scott
Moberly
1995 *189 *163 1996 *181 *164
Scott
Kennedy Siding
2007 *120 *103 2007 *120 *103
Scott
Burnt Pine
1996 *20 *187 1996 *20 *187
Scott
Quintette
2008 173
(173-218)9
147 2008 173
(173-218)9
147
Narraway
Bearhole/Red-willow
2008 *49 *46 2008 *49 *46
Narraway
Narraway – otherFootnote11.1Annexe 3
2008 (131) (118) 2008 (131) (118)
Narraway
Redrock-Prairie CreekFootnote12.1Annexe 3
1999 (478) (401) 1999 (478) (401)
Narraway
A La PecheFootnote13.1Annexe 3
1999 (123) (106) 1999 (123) (106)
Narraway
Jasper
1989 188Footnote14.1Annexe 3 145 1996 *103 *90
Narraway
Tonquin
- - - - *55 *46
Narraway
Maligne
- - - - *40 *37
Narraway
Brazeau
- - - - *8 *7
Narraway
BanffFootnote15.1Annexe 3
1986 *29 *26 1996 *8 *7
TOTAL - 1548 1310 - 1434 1237

Appendix 3b. Estimates of total numbers and number of mature individuals for subpopulations in Central Mountain DU (DU8) based on the most recent survey.

Table summarizing estimates of total numbers of caribou and numbers of mature individuals for caribou subpopulations in Central Mountain designatable unit, based on the most recent survey
Sous-
population

Most recent survey/ estimateFootnote1.2Annexe 3

Year

Most recent survey/ estimateFootnote1.2Annexe 3

Survey estimate

Total

Most recent survey/ estimateFootnote1.2Annexe 3

Survey estimate

MatureFootnote4.2Annexe 3

Most recent survey/ estimateFootnote1.2Annexe 3

Population estimate

Total

Most recent survey/ estimateFootnote1.2Annexe 3

Population estimate

MatureFootnote4.3Annexe 3

Scott
Scott East
2014 18 16 18 16
Scott
Scott West
2007 25Footnote5.2Annexe 3 19Footnote5.2Annexe 3 25Footnote5.2Annexe 3 19Footnote5.2Annexe 3
Scott
Moberly
2014 22 18 22 18
Scott
Kennedy Siding
2014Footnote6.2Annexe 3 30 29 30 29
Scott
Burnt Pine
2013Footnote8.1Annexe 3 0 0 0 0
Scott
Quintette
2014Footnote10.1Annexe 3 106
(98-113)
87 106
(98-113)
87
Narraway
Bearhole/Red-willow
2014 *14 *13 *14 *13
Narraway
Narraway – otherFootnote11.1Annexe 3
2012 (72) (65) (72) (65)
Narraway
Redrock-Prairie CreekFootnote12.1Annexe 3
2012 (127) (106) (127) (106)
Narraway
A La PecheFootnote13.1Annexe 3
2012 (88) (75) (88) (75)
Narraway
Jasper
2013 51 41 51 41
Narraway
Tonquin
- 38 30 38 30
Narraway
Maligne
- *5 *5 *5 *5
Narraway
Brazeau
- *8 *6 *8 *6
Narraway
BanffFootnote15.1Annexe 3
2009 0 0 0 0
TOTAL - 553 469 553 469

Appendix 3c. Source documents for survey data in the Central Mountain DU (DU8), Appendix 3a and 3b.

Source documents for survey data in the Central Mountain DU (DU8), Appendix 3a and 3b.
Sous-
population
Survey Year for 3 generations (reference) Survey Year for 2 generations (reference) Most recent survey year (reference)
Scott
Scott East
Giguere and McNay, 2007 Giguere and McNay, 2007 BC Ministry of Environment, unpublished data
Scott
Scott Ouest
S. McNay, pers. comm., 2013 S. McNay, pers. comm., 2013 S. McNay, pers. comm., 2013
Scott
Moberly
Wood, 1995 Wood and Hengeveld, 1998 BC Ministry of Environment, unpublished data
Scott
Kennedy Siding
Seip and Jones, 2013 Seip and Jones, 2013 BC Ministry of Environment, unpublished data
Scott
Burnt Pine
TERA, 1997 TERA, 1997 BC Ministry of Environment, unpublished data
Scott
Quintette
Seip and Jones, 2011 Seip and Jones, 2013 BC Ministry of Environment, unpublished data
Narraway
Bearhole/Red-willow
Seip and Jones, 2013 Seip and Jones, 2013 BC Ministry of Environment, unpublished data
Narraway
Narraway – autre11
ASRD and ACA, 2010; Alberta ESRD, unpublished data ASRD and ACA, 2010; Alberta ESRD, unpublished data ASRD and ACA, 2010; Alberta ESRD, unpublished data
Narraway
Redrock-Prairie Creek12
ASRD and ACA, 2010; Alberta ESRD, unpublished data ASRD and ACA, 2010; Alberta ESRD, unpublished data ASRD and ACA, 2010; Alberta ESRD, unpublished data
Narraway
A La Peche13
ASRD and ACA, 2010; Alberta ESRD, unpublished data ASRD and ACA, 2010; Alberta ESRD, unpublished data ASRD and ACA, 2010; Alberta ESRD, unpublished data
Narraway
Jasper
Brown et al., 1994 Parcs Canada, unpublished data Parcs Canada, unpublished data
Narraway
Tonquin
  Parcs Canada, unpublished data Parcs Canada, unpublished data
Narraway
Maligne
  Parcs Canada, unpublished data Parcs Canada, unpublished data
Narraway
Brazeau
  Parcs Canada, unpublished data Parcs Canada, unpublished data
Narraway
Banff15
Brown et al., 1994 Hebblewhite et al., 2010; Parcs Canada, unpublished data Hebblewhite et al., 2010

Appendix 4a. Estimates of total numbers and number of mature individuals for subpopulations in Southern Mountain DU (DU9) based on surveys conducted 3 generations ago and 2 generations ago.

Table summarizing estimates of total numbers of caribou and numbers of mature individuals for caribou subpopulations in Southern Mountain designatable unit, based on surveys conducted three and two generations ago, and on the most recent survey.
Subpopulation

Earliest, highest previous survey estimate within 3 generations (27 years)Footnote1.3Annexe 4,Footnote2.3Annexe 4

Year

Earliest, highest previous survey estimate within 3 generations (27 years)Footnote1.3Annexe 4,Footnote2.3Annexe 4

Total

Earliest, highest previous survey estimate within 3 generations (27 years)Footnote1.3Annexe 4,Footnote2.3Annexe 4

MatureFootnote4.3Annexe 4

Earliest, highest previous survey estimate within 2 generations (18 years)Footnote1.3Annexe 4,Footnote3.3Annexe 4

Year

Earliest, highest previous survey estimate within 2 generations (18 years)Footnote1.3Annexe 4,Footnote3.3Annexe 4

Total

Earliest, highest previous survey estimate within 2 generations (18 years)Footnote1.3Annexe 4,Footnote3.3Annexe 4

MatureFootnote4.3Annexe 4

Columbia North 1997 280
(210-280)
247 1997 280
(210-280)
247
Columbia South 1994 114
(106-142)
100 1996 103
(94-112)
90
Frisby Boulder 1994 *43 39 1997 *42 37
Monashee 1994 *12 8 2004 *8 7
Nakusp 1996 211
(191-264
192
(172-245)
1996 211
(191-264)
192
(172-245)
Duncan 1999 *31 23Footnote6.3Annexe 4 1999 *31 23Footnote6.3Annexe 4
Central Rockies 1995 *30 28 1997 *25 24
Purcells South 1995 69 63 1996 56 56
Purcells Central 1994 *22 19 1996 *22 20
South Selkirks 19957 *63 53 1999 *58 50Footnote6.3Annexe 4
George Mountain 1993 *24 228 1999 *7 68
Groundhog 1990 109 89 1999 31 25
Wells Gray 1995 631 522 2006 481 402
 Wells Gray South 1995 336 276 2006 *242 203
 Wells Gray North 1995 295
(256-398)
246 2006 239
(212-375)
199
Barkerville 1988 *46 39 1997 50
(50-129)
40
Narrow lake 1999 81 73 1999 81 73
North Cariboo Montain 1999 *299 280 1999 *299 280
Hart ranges 2006 716 590 2006 716 590
 Parsnip 2006 230 183 2006 230 183
Hart range South 2006 486 407 2006 486 407
TOTAL - 2781 2387 - 2501 2162

Appendix 4b. Table summarizing estimates of total numbers of caribou and numbers of mature individuals for caribou subpopulations in Southern Mountain designatable unit, based on the most recent survey.

Table summarizing estimates of total numbers of caribou and numbers of mature individuals for caribou subpopulations in Southern Mountain designatable unit, based on the most recent survey.
Subpopulation

Most recent survey/ estimateFootnote1.3Annexe 4

Year

Most recent survey/ estimateFootnote1.3Annexe 4

Survey estimate

Total

Most recent survey/ estimateFootnote1.3Annexe 4

Survey estimate

MatureFootnote4.3Annexe 4

Most recent survey/ estimateFootnote1.3Annexe 4

Population estimate

Total

Most recent survey/ estimateFootnote1.3Annexe 4

Population estimate

MatureFootnote4.3Annexe 4

Columbia North 2013 183 157 183 157
Columbia South 2013 7 6 7 6
Frisby Boulder 2013 13 12 13 12
Monashee 2011 *4 4 *4 4
Nakusp 2014Footnote5.3Annexe 4 64 54 64 54
Duncan 2012 2 2 2 2
Centre des Rocheuses 2008 3 4 3 4
Sud de la chaîne Purcell 2014 23 22 23 22
Centre de la chaîne Purcell9 2005 0 0 0 0
South Selkirks 2014 22 20 22 20
George Mountain 2004 0 0 0 0
Groundhog 2013 *13 11 *13 11
Wells Gray 2013 343 298 392 341
 Wells Gray Sud 2013 *133 112 *133 112
 Wells Gray Nord 2013 210 186 259 229
Barkerville 2012 88 76 90 78
Lac Narrow 2014 47 45 47 45
Monts Cariboo Nord 2011 222 202 222 202
Monts Hart 2013 439 381 459 398
 Parsnip 2013 101 88 121 105
Monts Hart Sud 2013 338 293 338 293
TOTAL - 1473 1294 1544 1356

Appendix 4c. Source documents for survey data in the Southern Mountain DU (DU9), Appendix 4a and 4b.

Source documents for survey data.
Subpopulation Survey Year for 2 generations (reference) Year de relevé pour deux générations (référence) Most recent survey year (reference)
Columbia North 1997 (McLellan et al., 2008) 1997 (McLellan et al., 2008) 2013 (BC MFLNRO, unpublished data)
Columbia South 1994 (McLellan et al., 2008) 1996 (McLellan et al., 2008) 2013 (BC MFLNRO, unpublished data)
Frisby Boulder 1994 (McLellan et al., 2008) 1997 (McLellan et al., 2008) 2013 (BC MFLNRO, unpublished data)
Monashee 1994 (McLellan et al., 2008) 2004 (McLellan et al.,2008) 2011 (Furk et al., 2011)
Nakusp 1996 (Hamilton et al., 2000) 1996 (Hamilton et al.,2000) 2014 (BC MFLNRO, unpublished data)
Duncan 1999 (Hamilton et al., 2000) 1999 (Hamilton et al.,2000) 2012 (DeGroot and Furk, 2012)
Central Rockies 1995 (McLellan et al.,2008) 1997 (McLellan et al.,2008) 2008 (McLellan et al., 2008)
Purcells South 1995 (BC MFLNRO, unpublished data) 1996 (BC MFLNRO, unpublished data) 2014 (BC MFLNRO, unpublished data)
Purcells Central 1994 (BC MFLNRO, unpublished data) 1996 (BC MFLNRO, unpublished data) 2005 (Kinley, 2006)
South Selkirks 1995 (Wakkinen, 2003) 1995 (Wakkinen, 2003) 2014 (BC MFLNRO, unpublished data)
George Mountain 1993 (Watts, 1999) 1999 (Watts, 1999) 2004 (Seip et al., 2004)
Groundhog 1990 (Hatter, 2006) 1999 (Hatter, 2006) 2013 (BC MFLNRO, unpublished data)
Wells Gray South 1995 (Scheer, 1995) 2006 (BC MFLNRO, unpublished data) 2013 (BC MFLNRO, unpublished data)
Wells Gray North 1995 (Freeman, 2012) 2006 (Freeman, 2012) 2013 (Mackay, 2013)
Barkerville 1988 (Freeman, 2012) 1997 (Freeman, 2012) 2012 (Freeman, 2012)Footnote1.4Annexe 4
Narrow Lake 1999 (Watts, 1999) 1999 (Watts, 1999) 2014 (Courtier and Heard, 2014)
North Cariboo Mountains 1999 (Watts, 1999; Young and Freeman, 2001b) 1999 (Watts, 1999; Young and Freeman 2001b) 2011 (Seip et al., 2011)
Hart Ranges (Parsnip only) 2006 (Seip et al., 2006) 2006 (Seip et al., 2006) 2013 (Heard et al., 2013)
Hart Ranges (south only) 2006 (Seip et al., 2006) 2006 (Seip et al.,2006) 2013 (Heard et al., 2013)Footnote2.4Annexe 4
Hart Ranges total 2006 (Seip et al., 2006) 2006 (Seip et al., 2006) 2012 (Heard et al., 2013)

Appendix 5. Threats calculator results for Northern Mountain Caribou DU (DU7)

Species Name:
Rangifer tarandus caribou
Element ID:
DU 7
Date:
14/11/2013
Assessor(s):
Chris Ritchie, BC FLNR, Fish & Wildlife Recovery, Victoria, Fish and Wildlife Recovery Implementation Manager; Conrad D. Thiessen, BC FLNRO, Fish & Wildlife Branch, Smithers, Wildlife Biologist; Jocelyn Campbell, BC FLNR, Fish & Wildlife Branch, Smithers, Ecosystems Biologist; Chris Nowotny, BC FLNR, Land Resource Management - Cariboo, Senior Habitat Management Biologist; Pat Dielemna, BC FLNR, Wildlife Biologist; Joanne McLeod, BC FLNR, Resource Management - Cariboo Regional Operations, Habitat Biologist, Chilcotin and Likely; Becky Cadsand, BC FLNRO, Wildlife Biologist, Cariboo Region; Troy Hegel, Yukon Gov, Species Programs, Ungulate Biologist (Caribou/ Sheep/ Goat); Tom Jung, Yukon Gov, Biodiversity Programs, Senior Wildlife Biologist (Biodiversity); Suzanne Carriere, NWT Wildlife Biologist (Biodiversity); Joanna Wilson, NWT Wildlife Biologist (Species at Risk); Nic Larter Dehcho, NWT Manager, Wildlife Research and Monitoring; Richard Popko Sahtu, NWT Manager, Wildlife Research and Monitoring; Justina Ray, Co-chair of the COSEWIC Terrestrial Mammals Specialist Subcommittee; Donna Bigelow, Environment Canada, Species at Risk Biologist; Dave Fraser, BC FLNRO, Threats Assessment Facilitator; Greg Ferguson, Environment Canada, Species at Risk Biologist, Conference Call Coordinator; Deb Cichowski, Consultant on contract with Environment Canada; Line Giguere, Wildlife Infometrics Inc.; Chris Johnson, UNBC and COSEWIC Terrestrial Mammals Specialist Subcommittee.

Appendix 5a. Northern Mountain Caribou DU (DU7) Level 1 Treats Calculator Guide

Appendix 5a. Northern Mountain Caribou DU (DU7) Level 1 Treats calculator Guide

Appendix 5a. Level 1 Threat Impact Counts for Northern Mountain Caribou DU (DU7)
Threat Impact
Number
Threat Impact
Level
Level 1 Threat Impact Counts
high range
Level 1 Threat Impact Counts
low range
- Calculated Overall Threat Impact: High Medium
A Very High 0 0
B High 0 0
C Medium 1 0
D Low 6 7

Appendix 5b. Northern Mountain Caribou DU (DU7) Level 1 Treats Calculator Matrix

Matrix summarizing threats to the Northern Mountain Caribou DU (DU7).

Matrix
Threat
Number
Threat
Classification
Impact (calculated)
Number
Impact (calculated)
Level
Scope (next 10 Yrs) Severity (10 Yrs or 3 Gen.) Timing Comments
1 Residential & commercial development - Negligible Negligible
(<1%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
-
1.1  Housing & urban areas - Negligible Negligible
(<1%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
YT: community of Whitehorse has and is expected to have impacts on Carcross herd (i.e., winter range impacts from land applications - rural residential). NT: not a major impact. BC: community of Atlin has and is expected to have impacts on Atlin herd. Some impact to Telkwa and Itcha-Ilgachuz herds in west-central BC.
2 Agriculture & aquaculture - Negligible Negligible
(<1%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
-
2.1  Annual & perennial non-timber crops - Negligible Negligible
(<1%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
YT: activity - hay crops. Overall negligible impact. BC: herds directly impacted - Telkwa, Graham. Overall negligible impact. Severity: localized habitat loss
2.3  Livestock farming & ranching - Unknown Small
(1-10%)
Unknown High
(Continuing)
YT and BC: more widespread with guide outfitters with horses in backcountry, all herds have some presence. Significant numbers of feral horses in the Itcha-Ilgachuz range around Anahim Lake; cattle grazing in Itcha-Ilgachuz
3 Energy production & mining D Low Small
(1-10%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
-
3.1  Oil & gas drilling D Low Small
(1-10%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
Scope: YT and NWT: not prevalent. BC: overall low (part of Graham, Muskwa, Liard Plateau, Pink Mountain herds). The score reflects only direct mortality from the activity and not the change in alternate prey/predators. This activity contributes to impacts from other related threats (e.g., wolves).
3.2  Mining & quarrying D Low Small
(1-10%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
Scope: YT: small direct impact. NT: one active mine in the range of the Redstone and Nahanni herds and 1 inactive mine that will likely become active within the next 10y. BC: operating and proposed mines happening in all ranges in NE (e.g., Liard Plateau, Muskwa, Graham, Pink Mountain) and in Edziza, Spatsizi, Level Mountain. Proposed mine in Tweedsmuir range. NW transmission line will facilitate new mines.
3.3  Renewable energy - Negligible (<1%) (1-10%) (Continuing) Scope: YT: negligible. NWT: nothing now. BC: wind in Graham, Pink Mountain. Severity: Severity: BC: concern to habitat for Graham herd.
4 Transportation & service corridors D Low Restricted
(11-30%)
Moderate
(11-30%)
High
(Continuing)
-
4.1  Roads & railroads D Low Restricted
(11-30%)
Moderate
(11-30%)
High
(Continuing)
Scope: YT: lower end of 11-30% rating. NT: very small scope. BC: Itcha-Ilgachuz herd will be subjected to extensive road development and logging traffic throughout most of their winter range over the next 10y. Low end of 1-10% for Muskwa, Pink Mountain, and Tsenaglode herds. Chase and Wolverine 30-70%, Takla 11-30%. No roads in Spatsizi, Frog, Gataga, minimal in Charlotte Aplands. Severity: impact is from caribou displaced by roads and direct impact (e.g., loss of habitat, hits). YT: there are hot spots for road kill. NT: no road impacts. BC: Itcha-Ilgachuz could see major increase in winter truck traffic in winter range. Based on combining existing and future threats of roads in entire DU, ranked as Moderate (11-30%).
4.2  Utility & service lines - Negligible Small
(1-10%)
Negligible
(<1%)
High
(Continuing)
Scope: YT: negilible or low end of small, new hydro lines going in or proposed. NWT: future impact of existing telegraph line is negligible (<1%) for Redstone herd. BC: pipelines and hydro lines going through herds. Expected 11-30% scope for Chase and Wolverine. Telkwa, Muskwa, Graham and Pink Mountain herds will be impacted by pipeline and hyrdo line. Spatsizi, Tsenaglode and Horseranch likely to be impacted by pipeline. Takla an unknown concern. Severity: Mechanism felt to be less than the impact from mining. General: examples of impacts: hydro right-of-ways, pipelines.
4.4  Flight paths - - - - - YT, NT, and BC: no concerns (directly speaking to regular aircraft flight paths)
5 Biological resource use D Low Small
(1-10%)
Moderate - Slight
(1-30%)
High
(Continuing)
-
5.1  Hunting & collecting terrestrial animals D Low Pervasive
(71-100%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
Scope: YT: pervasive, outfitters go everywhere; BC: Overall no hunting in southern part of range. Harvest is allowed in Itcha-Ilgachuz, Chase and Wolverine herds. Severity: YT: slight (2-3% harvest rate), some herds in decline because of harvest. NT: negligible. BC: quotas often go underutilized and some FN hunt. Hunting pressure may increase with caribou shifting to more settled and accessible areas and with decreases in moose populations.
5.3  Logging & wood harvesting D Low Small
(1-10%)
Moderate - Slight
(1-30%)
High
(Continuing)
Scope: YT: negligible. NWT: zero to neglible. BC: Liard Plateau, Pink Mountain, Itcha-Ilgachuz, Telkwa, Graham, Tweedsmuir, Chase (large due to pine beetle logging), Wolverine 71-100%. Itcha-Ilgachuz herd will be subjected to extensive logging throughout most of their winter range over the next 10 years. Severity: for Itcha-Ilgachuz herd forest harvesting occurs in the winter over half of their winter range with direct disturbance and increasing risk to wolf predation.
6 Human intrusions & disturbance D Low Large
(31-70%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
-
6.1  Recreational activities D Low Large (31-70%) Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
Scope: YT: small, few herds have heavy pressure. Aishihik herd threatened in relation to bison hunting and other herds threatened by recreational hunting for other non-caribou game species. NT: small, sport hunting and eco-tourism can cause impact. BC: all herds are impacted by recreational activities, 11-30%. Severity: Yukon: don't know precisely, but winter activity (e.g., snowmobiling) a known concern. BC: Snowmobiling a concern in BC for Itcha-Ilgachuz, Telkwas, Rainbow, Charlotte Alplands).
6.3  Work & other activities - Negligible Pervasive
(71-100%)
Negligible
(<1%)
High
(Continuing)
Scope: Yukon: pervasive. NWT: high. BC: all herds implicated. Severity: Yukon: exploration and helicopter impacts (low end of slight, but not negligible), not all animals impacted. NWT: negligible, as same impacts seen in Yukon aren't present. BC: negligible (e.g., Itcha-Ilgachuz). Threats considered from flights in and out of mining camps, biological/geological surveys, etc.
7 Natural system modifications D Low Pervasive
(71-100%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
-
7.1  Fire & fire suppression D Low (71-100%) (1-10%) (Continuing) Scope: YT, NT and BC: all herds exposed and likely to be impacted. Some NE BC herds subjected to prescribed burning for other species. YT: pervasive. BC: Chase and Wolverine will experience fires. Severity: can depend on intensity of fire. Lichen loss could be great with downed beetle killed pine. Lichen recovery won't happen in time frame of assessment. Also impacts to herds via habitat alienation.
7.2  Dams & water management/use - Negligible Small
(1-10%)
Negligible
(<1%)
High
(Continuing)
Existing dams have resulted in a significant permanent loss of habitat where they occured in caribou habitat. Scope: YT and NT: no impact expected. BC: no impact from Site C as caribou don't cross area. Williston Reservoir cuts caribou off (loss of connectivity, dispersal). Tweedsmuir caribou cross the Nechako reservoir and may be prone to drowning Severity: there may be some decreased dispersal and connectivity due to existing dams that is an ongoing threat.
7.3  Other ecosystem modifications D Low Large - Restricted (11-70%) Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
Scope: YT: mountain pine beetle likely to come north and could have a potential impact. Spruce bark beetle a concern. Range expansion of a number of new species in last century (e.g., mule deer, moose, elk). NT: negligible. BC: problem of mountain pine beetle still ongoing. Severity: General: some uncertainty of overall impact to caribou numbers. Yukon: believed to be small. NWT: negligible. BC: changes to habitat creating better habitat for alternate prey. Temporary loss of lichen over large area.
8 Invasive & other problematic species & genes CD Medium - Low Pervasive
(71-100%)
Moderate - Slight
(1-30%)
High
(Continuing)
-
8.1  Invasive non-native/alien species - Unknown Unknown Unknown High
(Continuing)
Severity: YT: non-native species are known to be present and there could be potential implications of these species increasing, also climate change could contribute to range expansion and population. Overall not a known driver in caribou declines, but are present. Increasing # degree days and/or stress likely to drive disease increase and damage.
8.2  Problematic native species CD Medium - Low Pervasive
(71-100%)
Moderate - Slight
(1-30%)
High
(Continuing)
Severity: Overall: not a lot of knowledge about presence and impact of problematic species (e.g., predators such as wolves, bears, wolverines, etc.) for many northern herds in DU (data deficient). Only herds for which there is more information are the southern herds where wolf/cougar predation is the chief proximate threat; it is associated with other impacts (e.g., roads, pipelines, forest harvesting, altered predator/prey relationships).
10 Geological events D Low Restricted
(11-30%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
-
10.3  Avalanches/landslides D Low Restricted
(11-30%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
Scope: YT: negligible, herds don't usually occur in this type of habitat. NT: negligible. BC: avalanches a concern (e.g., Peace region, Telkwa, Chase, Wolverine, Takla). Severity: Yukon and NWT: negligible. BC: one event could have a large impact (e.g., loss of a herd or majority of individuals).
11 Climate change & severe weather - Unknown Pervasive - Large
(31-100%)
Unknown High
(Continuing)
-
11.1  Habitat shifting & alteration - Unknown Pervasive - Large
(31-100%)
Unknown High
(Continuing)
Scope: all of YT and NWT. Yukon: definitely habitat shifting (e.g., losing snow pack conditions, permafrost melting in NT, earlier springs, changes in phenology, alpine areas are getting shrubbier). Severity: Unknown for Yukon and NWT.
11.4  Storms & flooding - Unknown Large - Restricted
(11-70%)
Unknown High
(Continuing)
Scope: YT: can happen anywhere in territory (e.g., rain on snow events, warm up and freezing in May). NT: no historical or current data on occurrence of threat available. BC: freeze thaw events are similar or may be happening more, but hard to say without more data and monitoring (i.e., not well documented).

Appendix 6. Threats calculator results for Central Mountain Caribou DU (DU8)

Species Name:
Rangifer tarandus caribou
Element ID
DU 8
Date:
15/11/2013
Assessor(s):
Chris Ritchie, BC FLNR, Fish & Wildlife Recovery, Victoria, Fish and Wildlife Recovery Implementation Manager; Chris Pasztor, BC MOE, Ecosystem Branch; Dale Seip, BC FLNRO, Wildlife Biologist; Dave Hervieux, AB Min Envir & Sustain Resources Dev, Fisheries and Wildlife Management, Fisheries and Wildlife Program Manager; Darcy Peel, Interchange with Environment Canada, Species at Risk Biologist; Greg Wilson, Environment Canada - PNR, A/Head SAR Recovery, formerly SAR Biologist; Mark Bradley, Jasper and Geoff Skinner, Parks Canada; Deborah Cichowski, Consultant on contract with Environment Canada; Dave Fraser, BC FLNRO, Threats Assessment Facilitator; Greg Ferguson, Environment Canada, Species at Risk Biologist, Conference Call Coordinator
Overall treat Comments:
General Introductory Discussion: clarification of threat assessment (i.e., proximate or direct threat versus indirect; e.g., habitat loss is direct, but the indirect result is a threat from changes to ecological interactions within the system). The IUCN threats assessment makes it very difficult to account for related and synergistic impacts, as the threats are assessed separately/individually (e.g., for southern and central caribou, habitat change through logging and wood harvesting is assessed separately as a direct impact, but this change leads to increased prey, which leads to increased predators (wolves, cougar, bear) that ultimately kill caribou). Caribou experts questioned the adequacy of using the IUCN process for assessing the threats to caribou, especially in regards to the severity of the impact, as it is difficult to parse out all the details between related threats. Dave Fraser commented that this assessment method is the most widely used in the world for species conservation and is the best we have at this time. Darcy Peel commented that concerns about related and synergistic threats needs to be captured, addressed and highlighted, where appropriate, in the description of threats section of the recovery strategy to ensure the reader understands the interactions and implications of threats to caribou.

Appendix 6a. Central Mountain Caribou DU (DU8) Level 1 Treats Calculator Guide

Appendix 6a. Central Mountain Caribou DU (DU8) Level 1 Treats calculator Guide

Appendix 6a. Level 1 Threat Impact Counts for Central Mountain Caribou DU (DU8)
Threat Impact
Number
Threat Impact
Level
Level 1 Threat Impact Counts
high range
Level 1 Threat Impact Counts
low range
- Calculated Overall Threat Impact: Very High Very High
A Very High 1 1
B High 0 0
C Medium 1 1
D Low 6 6

Appendix 6b. Central Mountain Caribou DU (DU8) Level 1 Treats Calculator Matrix

Matrix summarizing threats to the Central Mountain Caribou DU (DU8).

Matrix
Threat
Number
Threat
Classification
Impact (calculated)
Number
Impact (calculated)
Level
Scope (next 10 Yrs) Severity (10 Yrs or 3 Gen.) Timing Comments
1 Residential & commercial development D Low Small
(1-10%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
-
1.3  Tourism & recreation areas D Low Small
(1-10%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
Scope: Jasper: Marmot Basin ski resort has requested to expand. This herd covers more than 1% of DU's range, with a size of 54 mature individuals (~10% of total DU population). AB and BC: not a concern. Severity: slight.
3 Energy production & mining C Medium Large
(31-70%)
Moderate
(11-30%)
High
(Continuing)
-
3.1  Oil & gas drilling D Low Pervasive
(71-100%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
Threats may include removal of habitat, reduced use, avoidance, changes in movement, or proximity impacts. Scope: AB: all animals impacted except those in Jasper. BC: half of range impacted, including the Narraway (low-elevation habitats) and Quintette herds. Herds impacted are ~75% of total population. Severity: AB: suggested rate the same as timber harvesting.
3.2  Mining & quarrying C Medium Large
(31-70%)
Moderate
(11-30%)
High
(Continuing)
Threats may include expanding or new activities in next 10 years. Scope: AB: Redrock-Prarie Creek and A La Peche impacted. BC: 65% of caribou in BC (Narraway and Quintette anticipated coal mining). Severity: BC: there is an expected direct loss of limited habitat.
3.3  Renewable energy CD Medium - Low Large
(31-70%)
Moderate - Slight
(1-30%)
Moderate
(Possibly in the short term, < 10 yrs/3 gen)
General Comments: threat included wind farms. Scope: AB: all ridges where caribou exist are being investigated for wind. BC: extensive areas are being investigated for wind power. Likelihood of all tenures being developed is uncertain but believed to be low. To date, BC has been able to move wind projects to low or non-risk areas. Potentially a third of caribou impacted. Severity: AB and BC: there is uncertainty/speculation about how many will be developed and thus the severity of impact. In BC, tenures are in windswept alpine areas and if approved would have an impact.
4 Transportation & service corridors D Low (71-100%) (1-10%) (Continuing) -
4.1  Roads & railroads D Low Pervasive
(71-100%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
General: threats may include road construction, avoidance of roads, and being hit. Scope: all ranges implicated, but roads of concern are primarily those being built for oil and gas. Severity: AB and BC: minor.
4.2  Utility & service lines - Negligible Restricted
(11-30%)
Negligible
(<1%)
High
(Continuing)
General Comments: primarily considered pipelines and hydro lines. Scope: AB: 70-100%. BC: pipelines go through valley bottoms. For the most part, the Narraway herd being an exception, this is an unused area of habitat by caribou. Pipelines existing or proposed are likely within proximity to every herd. A powerline is already present for the Kenny Siding herd.
4.4  Flight paths - - - - - General: threat considered was regularly scheduled flights.
5 Biological resource use D Low Large
(31-70%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
-
5.1  Hunting & collecting terrestrial animals - Negligible Pervasive - Large (31-100%) Negligible
(<1%)
High
(Continuing)
Scope: AB: all caribou exposed to poaching or First Nations hunting, except Jasper. Few caribou known to be actually taken, but poaching always a potential concern. BC: no licensed sport hunting allowed, no evidence of First Nations harvest or poaching. Severity: AB and BC both agree <1%
5.3  Logging & wood harvesting CD Medium - Low Large
(31-70%)
Moderate - Slight
(1-30%)
High
(Continuing)
General Comment: threat is direct impact of logging (i.e., what harvesting is present or will actually or is predicted to happen within 10 years and its impact on caribou over 3 generations within the scope of its occurrence). Scope: AB and Parks Canada: all of the area. South Jasper caribou don't leave the park, but North Jasper do. A La Peche go into logged habitat. BC: in valley bottoms not a direct impact except in Narraway, Quintette and Kennedy Siding. However, the primary habitat alteration that indirectly harms caribou. ~30% of the caribou have direct logging impacts. Overall: total for DU is 31-70%. Severity: AB: caribou forced into sub-optimal habitat (e.g., deeper snow, avalanch terrain) and experience reduced body condition and increased risks of accidents. Higher concern for AB - moderate severity. BC: negligible. Harvesting not to occur in tree lichen forest, thus caribou are not starving because of logging.
6 Human intrusions & disturbance D Low Pervasive
(71-100%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High (Continuing) -
6.1  Recreational activities D Low Pervasive
(71-100%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
General Comments: threats may include snowmobiles, ATVs, hiking, heli-skiing, and helicopter or fixed wing access to backcountry areas. Impacts include direct mortality, chronic stress resulting in death, reduced reproduction, pushed into areas of harm (avalanch areas). Scope: AB and BC: all herds. Severity: AB: negligible. Parks Canada: potential for displacement of caribou due to tourism (severity slight). BC: not a lot of recreation areas that overlap with caribou range.
6.3  Work & other activities D Low Pervasive
(71-100%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
General Comments: threats may include survey flights for work purposes or other on-ground activities associated with work. Examples of impacts could include habitat loss or displacement of animals. Scope: AB: large, especially from activities associated with oil and gas development (e.g., surveying by people and other associated activities, blasting, sampling, drilling, running survey lines - 3D seismic in winter).
7 Natural system modifications D Low Pervasive
(71-100%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
-
7.1  Fire & fire suppression - Not Calculated (outside assessment timeframe) Small
(1-10%)
Moderate - Slight
(1-30%)
Low
(Possibly in the long term, >10 yrs/3 gen)
Scope: AB: no fire risk due to fire supression and extensive logging. Jasper: looking to avoid fires, but forests are older so is a potential concern but uncertain. BC: not a big concern, with the Narraway herd at most risk but minor. Limited fire supression in caribou ranges. Small 1-10%. Severity: AB and BC: where it occurs is moderate to slight.
7.2  Dams & water management/use - Negligible Small
(1-10%)
Negligible
(<1%)
High
(Continuing)
Threat includes the impact of existing dams and new dams. Existing dams have resulted in a significant permanent loss of habitat where they occured in caribou habitat. Scope: could be a threat to Scott herd since the Williston reservoir bisects a large part of their range. No new dams are expected in DU in next 10 years. Ranked as small. Severity: there may be some decreased dispersal, connectivity, and mortality (drowning) due to Williston reservoir as an ongoing threat. Ranked as negligible. Timing: high (continuing).
7.3  Other ecosystem modifications D Low Pervasive
(71-100%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
Threat considered mountain pine beetle and loss of habitat and forage and displacement of animals as direct impact. Indirect impact is changes in habitat that result in increased prey and predators. Scope: AB: not as much pine and impact. Jasper: not a large concern. BC: only ~30% are exposed to pine forests (Kennedy and Narraway herds). Severity: BC: temporary impact to population due to short-term decline in lichen, but not a major concern for longterm.
8 Invasive & other problematic species & genes A Very High Pervasive
(71-100%)
Extreme
(71-100%)
High
(Continuing)
-
8.1  Invasive non-native/alien species - Unknown Unknown Unknown Moderate
(Possibly in the short term, < 10 yrs/3 gen)
Chronic wasting disease was the main concern raised as an alien species having been introduced via game farming.
8.2  Problematic native species A Very High (71-100%) (71-100%) (Continuing) Threat considered was direct mortality due to predators (e.g., wolves, bear, cougar) and/or the influence they have on caribou (e.g., displacement, increased movement, stress, reduced body condition). However, increased predation was directly related to increased prey populations (e.g., white tailed deer) resulting from an increase in early seral forest due to considerable developement in the area (i.e., forest harvesting, mining, oil and gas activities). Recreational trails (e.g., ski/snomobile) also a contributing factor as they provide access for predators to caribou. Fire mostly a concern for herds in federal parks. Climate change a possible factor. Scope: pervasive. Severity: extreme (71-100). This is a significant threat to the persistence of caribou in this DU. Concern that there are no large herds to dampen impact, unlike DU7. Very few caribou will remain if this threat is not addressed in a timely and significant way.
9 Pollution - Negligible Pervasive
(71-100%)
Negligible
(<1%)
High
(Continuing)
-
9.6  Excess energy - Negligible Pervasive
(71-100%)
Negligible
(<1%)
High
(Continuing)
General Comment: threat considered was noise (compressor stations, flare stacks considered in oil and gas). Scope: AB: everything. BC: Narraway and Quintette. Severity: AB: low impact. Agreement to rank the same as oil and gas.
10 Geological events D Low Small
(1-10%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
-
10.3  Avalanches/landslides D Low Small
(1-10%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
General: Scope: ~6% of mortality for Jasper herds was due to avalanches. In the Banff area the last 5 caribou were extirpated in 1 avalanche.
11 Climate change & severe weather - Not Calculated (outside assessment timeframe) Unknown Unknown Low
(Possibly in the long term, >10 yrs/3 gen)
-
11.1  Habitat shifting & alteration - Not Calculated (outside assessment timeframe) Unknown Unknown Low
(Possibly in the long term, >10 yrs/3 gen)
Next 10 years probably not a significant change; likely reduction of alpine meadows in the long term. AB: not a concern.

Appendix 7. Threats calculator results for Southern Mountain Caribou DU (DU9)

Species Name:
Rangifer tarandus caribou
Date:
13/11/2013
Assessor(s):
Chris Ritchie, BC FLNRO, Fish & Wildlife Recovery, Victoria, Fish and Wildlife Recovery Implementation Manager; Chris Pasztor, BC MOE, Ecosystem Branch; John Surgenor, BC FLNRO, Ecosystems Branch, Kamloops, Wildlife Biologist; Darcy Peel, Interchange with Environment Canada, Species at Risk Biologist; Kelsey Furk, Parks Canada, Wildlife Biologist; Danielle Backman, Parks Canada, Glacier National Park; Deborah Cichowski, Consultant on contract with Environment Canada; Justina Ray, Co-chair of the COSEWIC Terrestrial Mammals Specialist Subcommittee; Dave Fraser, BC FLNRO, Threats Assessment Facilitator; Greg Ferguson, Environment Canada, Species at Risk Biologist, Conference Call Coordinator

Appendix 7a. Southern Mountain Caribou DU (DU9) Level 1 Treats Calculator Guide

Appendix 7a. Southern Mountain Caribou DU (DU9) Level 1 Treats calculator Guide

Appendix 7-a. Level 1 Threat Impact Counts for Southern Mountain Caribou DU (DU9)
Threat Impact
Number
Threat Impact
Level
Level 1 Threat Impact Counts
high range
Level 1 Threat Impact Counts
low range
- Calculated Overall Threat Impact: Very High Very High
A Very High 1 1
B High 0 0
C Medium 3 1
D Low 3 5

Appendix 7b. Southern Mountain Caribou DU (DU9) Level 1 Treats Calculator Matrix

Matrix summarizing threats to the Southern Mountain Caribou.

Matrix
Threat
Number
Threat
Classification
Impact (calculated)
Number
Impact (calculated)
Level
Scope (next 10 Yrs) Severity (10 Yrs or 3 Gen.) Timing Comments
2 Agriculture & aquaculture - Negligible Negligible
(<1%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
-
2.1  Annual & perennial non-timber crops - Negligible Negligible
(<1%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
Threat is from direct impact of non-timber crops (e.g., agricultural fields) on caribou survival in next 10 years. Does not include increases in alternate prey. Severity: Parks Canada is negligible. BC: slight at most.
2.3  Livestock farming & ranching - Negligible Small
(1-10%)
Negligible
(<1%)
High
(Continuing)
Considered the threats of cows (low) and horses (a bit higher).
3 Energy production & mining D Low Restricted - Small
(1-30%)
Moderate
(11-30%)
High
(Continuing)
-
3.1  Oil & gas drilling - Negligible Negligible
(<1%)
Unknown Moderate
(Possibly in the short term, < 10 yrs/3 gen)
Scope: shale gas potentially in the Kootenays; but low in the next 10 years.
3.2  Mining & quarrying D Low Small
(1-10%)
Moderate
(11-30%)
High
(Continuing)
General Comments: included the threats of noise and dust and risk of death or diminished capability on active or new mines from footprint, facilities and associated human activity. Scope: restricted occurrence. BC: some in Kootenays, Barkerville, and exploration in some Kamloops areas. Parks Canada comment: exploration overlaps with some calving ranges. Ruddock mine northwest of Revelstoke has proposed expansion. Severity: moderate. BC: severity is moderate or perhaps higher.
3.3  Renewable energy D Low Restricted - Small
(1-30%)
Moderate
(11-30%)
Moderate
(Possibly in the short term, < 10 yrs/3 gen)
General Comments: Threats included Independent Power Projects (IPPs) (i.e., run-of-river and wind projects) and impacts of disturbance and displacement via construction, footprint and operation (noise, access). Does not include roads as this is covered under threat 4.1. Scope: BC: there are quite a few run-of-river projects proposed for the North Thompson, but small footprint and mainly in low-elevation areas; some run-of-river projects in place but not yet in caribou habitat. DU wide: there is a considerable amount of uncertaintry regarding the extent of IPP developments and footprints in the next decade. Wind: no wind projects currently proposed for entire DU in caribou habitat. Possible impacts to sensitive habitats (e.g., calving sites) through improper siting. Severity: BC: moderate (risk of death or diminished capability on a windmill site is less than at a mine and more than on a wheat field). Following expert comments, adjusted scope from Small (1-10%) to Restricted-Small (1-30%) and severity from Slight (1-10%) to Moderate (11-31%).
4 Transportation & service corridors CD Medium - Low Pervasive
(71-100%)
Moderate - Slight
(1-30%)
High
(Continuing)
-
4.1  Roads & railroads CD Medium - Low Pervasive
(71-100%)
Moderate - Slight
(1-30%)
High
(Continuing)
General Comments: threats include effects of existing and new roads on habitat availability (direct loss) and use (avoidance, barriers to movement/fragmentation) and direct mortality (vehicle collisions/road kills) and reduced fitness (ingestion of salts). Note: resource roads are the main conduit for recreational access (e.g., snowmobile) and possible predator movement. Severity: potential twinning of Trans Canada Highway may make threat worse. Real risk of a large group of caribou being killed by a truck on the Mica Highway in the next 10 years. Groups of 20+ congregate on the highway. 6.5% (3 of 46 caribou) of the South Selkirk population was killed during the winter of 2008/2009 (truck killed a mature bull Oct 2008 and a car killed two cows March 2009) on Highway 3 at Kootenay Pass, of which 7km is in core caribou habitat (also called Salmo-Creston Highway or a segment of the Crowsnest Highway) and there is a risk more could be killed. Following expert comments, adjusted severity from Negligible (<1%) to Moderate-Slight (1-30%).
4.2  Utility & service lines D Low Small
(1-10%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
General Comments: considered threats from existing and new utility and service lines (IPPs, pipelines) on habitat availablity (direct loss) and use (avoidance, barriers to movement/fragmentation). Indirect threats not ranked here, but noted include increased habitat for moose and facilitation of snowmobile access into caribou habitat (e.g., one access point could open up a large area of late winter caribou habitat to snowmobile disturbance). Scope: BC: North Thompson some new powerlines proposed; Kinder Morgan pipeline planned to go through North Thompson but in valley bottom; other pipelines proposed further north. Severity: IPP transmission lines could impact habitat directly (e.g., will be permanent early seral non-lichen producing habitat).
4.4  Flight paths - - - - - General Comments: threats considered included predictable/regular flights in and out of area (e.g., commercial flight paths in and out of airports). Dealt with heli-skiing flight paths under recreation.
5 Biological resource use CD Medium - Low Large - Restricted
(11-70%)
Moderate - Slight
(1-30%)
High
(Continuing)
-
5.1  Hunting & collecting terrestrial animals - Negligible Pervasive
(71-100%)
Negligible
(<1%)
High
(Continuing)
Scope: potential occurrence throughout the DU, although some areas are inaccessible. Note: increased roads could facilitate more access. Severity: there are a few cases of illegal harvest (2/165 mortalities between 1984 and 2004 in 15 of 17 subpopulations - Wittmer et al. 2005). Based on expert comment, added scope of Pervasive, severity of Negligible, and timing as High.
5.3  Logging & wood harvesting CD Medium - Low Large - Restricted
(11-70%)
Moderate - Slight
(1-30%)
High
(Continuing)
General Comments: threat only assessed based on habitat loss and not predation. Only considered new logging, not past logging. Scope: BC: two million hectares of high-elevation habitat is protected and impact to this is expected to be small (<10%, some possible for mining). Timber harvesting is expected to occur in habitats used by caribou in the Revelstoke area and further north rather than in seasonal habitats used in other areas of the DU. Severity: most of the caribou in the DU winter and summer primarily at high elevations, so won't be impacted by logging. Those caribou in the Revelstoke area occur at all elevations and there has been less habitat protected there than what's recommended. Thus, the severity of logging to these caribou will be greater.
6 Human intrusions & disturbance D Low Pervasive
(71-100%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
-
6.1  Recreational activities D Low Pervasive
(71-100%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
Threats include backcountry recreation (e.g., skiers, snowmobiliers) and low-flying helicopters (e.g., heli-skiing). This can lead to increased stress and displacement from ideal habitat (e.g., into avalanche prone terrain). Note: increased roads contribute to greater access for recreational users to caribou habitat. Severity: avalanches can be significant source of mortality for caribou (see section 10.3) and backcountry users directly increase this threat. Severity originally Slight, raised to Moderate, but lowered to Slight again, as 10% of mortality to caribou would be 180 animals over 10 years and it was felt that mortality would be less than this. A slight ranking also aligns with the other DU threats assessments.
6.2  War, civil unrest & military exercises - Negligible Negligible
(<1%)
Serious - Moderate
(11-70%)
High
(Continuing)
Scope: Mt. Revelstoke/Glacier military run avalanche control but scope likely negligible.
6.3  Work & other activities - Negligible Large
(31-70%)
Negligible
(<1%)
High
(Continuing)
General Comments: includes avalanche control, rock hounds, layout, and general traipsing around of workers prior to resource extraction activities. Severity: likely negligible (low certainty). 2/165 mortalities in Wittmer et al. 2005 were research (capture) related. Surveying does involve disturbing caribou with potential displacement to avalanche-prone terrain. There is a risk of direct mortality and displacement during avalanche control activities (e.g., highways - Kootenay Pass, Trans Canada Highway; heliskiing, mining, forestry).
7 Natural system modifications D Low Pervasive
(71-100%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
-
7.1  Fire & fire suppression D Low Small
(1-10%)
Moderate - Slight
(1-30%)
High
(Continuing)
Some larger prescribed burns planned in National Parks. Some fires in Kootenay herds. Recognition that fires in the recent past have been a concern (large) in disturbing habitat in general and could affect future caribou habitat.
7.2  Dams & water management/use - Negligible Small
(1-10%)
Negligible
(<1%)
High
(Continuing)
Threat includes the impact of existing dams and new dams. Scope: small. Existing dams have resulted in a significant permanent loss of early winter habitat where they occured in caribou habitat. No new dams are expected in DU in next 10 years. Severity: there may be some decreased dispersal due to existing dams that is an ongoing threat, although caribou are known to swim the lake. Severity: negligible. Timing: high (continuing).
7.3  Other ecosystem modifications D Low Pervasive
(71-100%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
Threat includes changes in alternate prey populations (e.g., moose and deer) caused by current and future habitat change and forest pathogens (e.g., mountain pine beetle, spruce bark beetle) and the direct impact of this on caribou habitat and fitness. Scope: moose are decreasing, stable and increasing in different areas of DU, while deer are increasing in the south and likely throughout DU. KF: scope of impact of moose/deer is pervasive (i.e., all SM caribou likely to be impacted by recent impacts of development (logging, powerlines, etc.) via increased moose and deer populations even if all logging was stopped today. DB: may be worth considering to increase the scope to “large, 31-70%”. Currently no overall plan to reduce moose population. Mountain pine beetle currently and in the next 10 years felt to be a small effect. Spruce bark beetles and other forest insects possible concern in future. Conditions will depend on the kind of management that is being done. Severity: hard to judge, may be less than serious since deer/moose don't directly kill or compete with caribou. But, the severe impact of altered predator prey dynamics due to increased early seral forest must be captured somewhere. This threat came up during different discussions on the call and was noted that it should be revisited (results of other ecosystem disturbance).
8 Invasive & other problematic species & genes A Very High Pervasive
(71-100%)
Extreme
(71-100%)
High
(Continuing)
-
8.2  Problematic native species A Very High Pervasive
(71-100%)
Extreme
(71-100%)
High
(Continuing)
General Comments: threat considered was direct mortality due to predators (e.g., wolves, bear, cougar) and/or the influence they have on caribou (e.g., displacement, increased movement, stress, reduced body condition). However, increased predation was directly related to increased prey populations (e.g., moose, white tailed deer) following an increase in early seral forest due to considerable developement in the area (i.e., forest harvesting, mining, oil and gas activities). Recreational trails (e.g., ski/snomobile) also a contributing factor as they provide access for predators to caribou. Fire mostly a concern for herds in federal parks and Kootney area. Climate change a possible factor. Scope: pervasive. Severity: extreme (71-100). Concern that there are no large herds to dampen impact, as in DU7. Very few caribou will remain if this threat is not addressed in a timely and significant way.
10 Geological events C Medium Large
(31-70%)
Moderate
(11-30%)
High
(Continuing)
-
10.3  Avalanches/landslides C Medium Large
(31-70%)
Moderate
(11-30%)
High
(Continuing)
Threat is posed by natural avalanches and not the increase in risk due to displacement of caribou into avalanche terrain from work or recreation, which are captured in those sections. Scope: avalanche risk is highest in steep and rugged terrain. Severity: avalanches pose a risk to all caribou, but particulary small populations.
11 Climate change & severe weather - Unknown Pervasive
(71-100%)
Unknown High
(Continuing)
-
11.1  Habitat shifting & alteration - Unknown Pervasive
(71-100%)
Unknown High
(Continuing)
Climate change that will influence the entire DU is some way over the next 10 years. Severity: the severity of the change that will occur and its direct impact on caribou survival over 3 generations is uncertain/unknown. Climate modelling suggests that in perhaps 50 years the range of the Purcells-South caribou is likely to start contracting, with decreased snowpack, but increased winter rainfall, and spring snowfall projected to decrease much sooner by 2080. This will likely result in contraction of the duration or width of the snowpack barrier and change predation risk to caribou. Disease, fire or other disturbance agents may also start to convert forest habitat characteristics. Wang and others have models that predict the ICH vk may reduce significantly / disappear or could shift up in elevation. Extreme weather conditions impact lichen, access to arboreal lichens, low snowfalls, and possible more frequent avalanche cycles.
11.3  Temperature extremes - - - - - This is captured in threat 11. 1.
11.4  Storms & flooding - - - - - This is captured in threat 11. 1.

Page details

Date modified: