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 ±SE1^{Footnote1annexe 1}	Central Mountain DU Subpopulation	Central Mountain DU Mean annual adult female survival rate^{Footnote2Annexe 1}	Northern Mountain DU Subpopulation	Northern Mountain DU Mean annual adult female survival rate
South Purcells	0,55 ± 0,10	Moberly	0,739	Telkwa^{Footnote3Annexe 1}	0,883 (adult), 1998-2008
Nakusp	0,85 ± 0,04	Burnt Pine	0,857	Chisana^{Footnote4Annexe 1}	0,77 ± 0,06 (adult), 1989-1997
Columbia South	0,85 ± 0,04	Kennedy Siding	0,848	Wolf Lake^{Footnote4Annexe 1}	0,89 ± 0,04 (adult), 1993-1997
Columbia North	0,81 ± 0,03	Quintette	0,915	Aishihik^{Footnote4Annexe 1}	0,87 (adult), 1991-1992
Frisby-Boulder	0,90 ± 0,10	Narraway (Bearhole/Redwillow)	0,806	Swan lake^{Footnote3Annexe 1}	0,90 ± 0,06, 2005-2007
Groundhog	0,78 ± 0,10	Narraway (Narraway)	0,828	Little Rancheria^{Footnote3Annexe 1}	0,89 ± 0,05, 1996-2000
Wells Gray	0,84 ± 0,10	A la Peche	0,905	Horseranch^{Footnote3Annexe 1}	0,88 ± 0,05, 1997-2000
Barkerville	0,88 ± 0,10	Redrock-Prairie Creek	0,859	Tweedsmuir-Entiako^{Footnote5Annexe 1}	0,83 (1984-2003, except 1988/1989, 1989/1990, 1991/1992)
North Cariboo Mountains	0,91 ± 0,10	Jasper	0,880	Muskwa^{Footnote6Annexe 1}	0,85 (2000-2003)
Hart ranges	0,96 ± 0,10
Mean	0,83	Mean	0,849	Mean	0,863

Footnotes

Footnote 1

From Wittmer et al. (2005)

Return to footnote1 Referrer

Footnote 2

Moberly, Burnt Pine, Kennedy Siding, Quintette and Narraway (Bearhole/Redwillow) from Seip and Jones (2013); Narraway (Narraway), A La Peche, Redrock-Prairie Creek and Jasper from ASRD&ACA (2010)

Return to footnote2 Referrer

Footnote 3

From BC Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations unpublished data

Return to footnote3 Referrer

Footnote 4

From Hayes et al. 2003 (only pre-wolf removal or control subpopulation data is used here)

Return to footnote4 Referrer

Footnote 5

From Cichowski and MacLean 2005

Return to footnote5 Referrer

Footnote 6

From Tripp et al. 2006

IUCN generation length calculation: Generation length = (1/mortality rate) + age at first reproduction
Southern Mountain DU: (1/0.17) + 2 = 5.88 + 2 = 8 years
Central Mountain DU: (1/0.15) + 2 = 6.67 + 2 = 9 years
Northern Mountain DU: (1/0.137) + 2 = 7.28 + 2 = 9 years

Return to footnote6 Referrer

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} Mature^{Footnote2.1Annexe 2}
Northern Yukon/Northwest Territories Hart River	*1978	DM+Ex	-	1 200^{Footnote4.1Annexe 2}	-	914^{Footnote5.1Annexe 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	1 432^{Footnote8Annexe 2}	970-2 933	1 337
Northern Yukon/Northwest Territories Coal River	*1997	DM+Ex	-	450^{Footnote10Annexe 2}	-	392
Northern Yukon/Northwest Territories La Biche	-	-	-	-	-	-
Southwest Yukon Chisana^{Footnote13Annexe 2}	2003 2005 2007	MR MR MR	-	720 706 766	-	607 603 704
Southwest Yukon Kluane	*1997 2003^{Footnote14Annexe 2}	MR DM	-	191 235	-	144 204
Southwest Yukon Aishihik	1981 1991 1993^{Footnote15Annexe 2} 1997	DM DM DM SRQ	90	1 500 785 732 1 148	1 073-1 223	1 399^{Footnote16Annexe 2} 732 515^{Footnote17Annexe 2} 889
Southwest Yukon Klaza	1989 2000	MR DM+Ex	-	485^{Footnote18Annexe 2} 700^{Footnote19Annexe 2}	-	383^{Footnote20Annexe 2} 609^{Footnote19Annexe 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	664^{Footnote24Annexe 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 Carcross^{Footnote25Annexe 2}	1997 2003	SRQ ED	90 90	403 750	278-527 465-1 200	312 675
Southern Lakes Yukon Atlin^{Footnote25Annexe 2}	1999	SRQ	90	809	666-951	679
Northwest BC Swan Lake^{Footnote25Annexe 2}	-	-	-	-	-	-
Northwest BC Little Rancheria^{Footnote27Annexe 2}	*1988	SRQ	90	681^{Footnote28Annexe 2}	545-817	560
Northwest BC Horseranch^{Footnote25Annexe 2}	-	-	-	-	-	-
Northwest BC Level Kawdy	-	-	-	-	-	-
Northwest BC Edziza	-	-	-	-	-	-
Northwest BC Tsenaglode	-	-	-	-	-	-
Northwest BC Spatsizi	-	-	-	-	-	-
Northeast BC Liard Plateau^{Footnote25Annexe 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	-	82^{Footnote42Annexe 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	-	62^{Footnote45Annexe 2} 59 49 37^{Footnote46Annexe 2} 33 12 8 40 62 66 64 39 40^{Footnote47Annexe 2}
West-central BC Tweedsmuir	1987	MR	90	471	316-872	433
West-central BC Itcha-Ilgachuz^{Footnote 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 Alplands^{Footnote53Annexe 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/ estimate^{Footnote1.1Annexe 2} Year	Most recent survey/ estimate^{Footnote1.1Annexe 2} %CI	Most recent survey/ estimate^{Footnote1.1Annexe 2} Survey estimate Type^{Footnote3.1Annexe 2}	Most recent survey/ estimate^{Footnote1.1Annexe 2} Survey estimate Total	Most recent survey/ estimate^{Footnote1.1Annexe 2} Survey estimate CI	Most recent survey/ estimate^{Footnote1.1Annexe 2} Survey estimate Mature^{Footnote2.1Annexe 2}	Most recent survey/ estimate^{Footnote1.1Annexe 2} Population estimate Total	Most recent survey/ estimate^{Footnote1.1Annexe 2} Population estimate CI	Most recent survey/ estimate^{Footnote1.1Annexe 2} Population estimate Mature^{Footnote 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	-	-	4 200^{Footnote6.1Annexe 2}	5 000^{Footnote7Annexe 2}	-	4 200^{Footnote6.1Annexe 2}
Northern Yukon/Northwest Territories Redstone	2012	-	RT	> 10 000	-	> 7 300^{Footnote6.1Annexe 2}	> 10 000	-	> 7 300^{Footnote6.1Annexe 2}
Northern Yukon/Northwest Territories South Nahanni	2009	95	MR	2 105	1 591-3 029	1 886^{Footnote9Annexe 2}	2 105	1 591-3 029	1 886^{Footnote9Annexe 2}
Northern Yukon/Northwest Territories Coal River	2008	-	DM+Ex	-	-	413^{Footnote11Annexe 2}	450^{Footnote11Annexe 2}	-	413^{Footnote11Annexe 2}
Northern Yukon/Northwest Territories La Biche	1993	-	DM+Ex	-	-	388^{Footnote12Annexe 2}	450^{Footnote12Annexe 2}	-	388^{Footnote12Annexe 2}
Southwest Yukon Chisana^{Footnote13Annexe 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	316^{Footnote21Annexe 2}	-	289^{Footnote21Annexe 2}	316^{Footnote21Annexe 2}	-	289^{Footnote21Annexe 2}
Central Yukon Moose Lake	1991^{Footnote22Annexe 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	1 000^{Footnote23Annexe 2}	-	876	1 000^{Footnote23Annexe 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 Carcross^{Footnote25Annexe 2}	2007	90	ED	775	642-935	674	775	642-935	674
Southern Lakes Yukon Atlin^{Footnote25Annexe 2}	2007	90	SRQ	777	641-913	666	600-1 000	-	514-857
Northwest BC Swan Lake^{Footnote25Annexe 2}	2007	-	DM+Ex	600-800^{Footnote26Annexe 2}	-	515-686	600-800^{Footnote26Annexe 2}	-	515-686
Northwest BC Little Rancheria^{Footnote27Annexe 2}	1999	-	SRQ +Ex^{Footnote29Annexe 2} ^{Footnote30Annexe 2}	-	-	-	800-1 600	-	672-1 342^{Footnote29Annexe 2}
Northwest BC Horseranch^{Footnote25Annexe 2}	2000	-	DM+Ex	800-1 000^{Footnote31Annexe 2}	-	680-850	800-1 000^{Footnote31Annexe 2}	-	680-850
Northwest BC Level Kawdy	1998	-	DM+Ex	1 538^{Footnote32Annexe 2}	-	1 239	1 538^{Footnote32Annexe 2}	-	1 239
Northwest BC Edziza	2006	-	DM	151	-	140	151	-	140
Northwest BC Tsenaglode	2008	-	AE	-	-	-	100-400	-	85-340^{Footnote33Annexe 2}
Northwest BC Spatsizi	1994	-	DM+Ex	2 681^{Footnote34Annexe 2}	-	2 258^{Footnote34Annexe 2}	2 681^{Footnote34Annexe 2}	-	2 258^{Footnote34Annexe 2}
Northeast BC Liard Plateau^{Footnote25Annexe 2}	2011	-	DM	151	-	140	151	-	140
Northeast BC Rabbit	2007	-	DM+Ex	1 133^{Footnote35Annexe 2}	-	954	1 300	-	1 095
Northeast BC Muskwa	2007	-	DM+Ex	738^{Footnote36Annexe 2}	-	611	1 000^{Footnote36Annexe 2}	-	828
Northeast BC Gataga	2000^{Footnote37Annexe 2}	-	DM	265	-	220	265	-	220
Northeast BC Frog	2001^{Footnote38Annexe 2}	-	DM	237	-	199	237	-	199
Northeast BC Finlay	2002	-	SRQ	26	-	19	26	-	19
Northeast BC Mont Pink	1993^{Footnote39Annexe 2}	-	DM	1 275	-	1 145	1 275	-	1 145
Northcentral BC Graham	2009^{Footnote40Annexe 2}	95	MR	708	311-1 558	637	708	311-1 558	637
Northcentral BC Chase	2009^{Footnote41Annexe 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	25^{Footnote48Annexe 2}	-	19^{Footnote48Annexe 2}
West-central BC Tweedsmuir	2002	-	DM+Ex	300^{Footnote49Annexe 2}	-	248^{Footnote49Annexe 2}	300^{Footnote49Annexe 2}	-	248^{Footnote49Annexe 2}
West-central BC Itcha-Ilgachuz^{Footnote 50 Annexe 2}	2012	-	MR	1 685	1 431-1 791	1 220 (990-1 550)	1 685^{Footnote51Annexe 2}	1 431-1 791	1 220^{Footnote51Annexe 2} (990-1 550)
West-central BC Rainbows	2008	-	DM	50^{Footnote52Annexe 2}	-	43^{Footnote52Annexe 2}	50^{Footnote52Annexe 2}	-	43^{Footnote52Annexe 2}
West-central BC Charlotte Alplands^{Footnote53Annexe 2}	2012^{Footnote54Annexe 2}	-	DM	7^{Footnote54Annexe 2}	-	6^{Footnote54Annexe 2}	7^{Footnote54Annexe 2}	-	6^{Footnote54Annexe 2}

Footnotes

Footnote 1.1

Where survey estimates were not provided in the survey report, the total number counted (minimum count) was used as the survey estimate and population estimate. Source documents for surveys in this table are listed in Apppendix 2A. Surveys indicated with an asterix [*] were not considered comparable to the most recent estimate because of an unknown or smaller survey area.

Return to footnote1.1 Referrer

Footnote 2.1

The number of mature individuals was derived by applying the proportion of adults in the survey to the survey estimate or population estimate

Return to footnote2.1 Referrer

Footnote 3.1

DS = distance sampling; EO = expert opinion; GS = ground survey; MC = minimum count; MC+Ex = minimum count + extrapolation; MC+SCF = minimum count + sightability correction factor; MR = mark/resight; SRQ = stratified random quadrat

Return to footnote3.1 Referrer

Footnote 4.1

Based on 977 caribou counted during a sheep survey in 1978 (Farnell and Russell 1984). This estimate is provided for an historical perspective but no details were provided so a long-term trend was not estimated

Return to footnote4.1 Referrer

Footnote 5.1

The number of mature individuals was derived by applying the average % adults from the April 1981 and 1982 composition surveys from the nearby Bonnet Plume subpopulation (from Farnell and Russell 1984)

Return to footnote5.1 Referrer

Footnote 6.1

The number of mature individuals was derived by applying the average % adults from hunter observations from 1991 to 2010 (Larter 2012)

Return to footnote6.1 Referrer

Footnote 7

Based on 1074 caribou counted during a survey in April 1982 and extent of snow tracking sign (Farnell and Russell 1984)

Return to footnote7 Referrer

Footnote 8

Population estimate based on re-analysis of data from Gunn et al. 2002 (T. Hegel, pers. comm. 2013)

Return to footnote8 Referrer

Footnote 9

The 2001 and 2009 surveys areas were different so the survey estimates are not directly comparable. The number of mature individuals estimated in 2009 for the same survey area as the 2001 survey was 1465.

Return to footnote9 Referrer

Footnote 10

Estimate based on 383 caribou counted in October 1997. No trend estimated between 1997 and 2008

Return to footnote10 Referrer

Footnote 11

Estimate based on 341 caribou counted in October 2008

Return to footnote11 Referrer

Footnote 12

Estimate based on 348 caribou counted in October 1993

Return to footnote12 Referrer

Footnote 13

Fall composition surveys have been conducted annually from 1987 to 2011 except 1989 and 2004 (Chisana Working Group 2012). Data prior to 2003 is not included because population estimates were based on an interpolation of composition data. Since 2003, population estimates are based on formal estimates of the subpopulation's size and are not directly comparable to pre-2003 estimates.

Return to footnote13 Referrer

Footnote 14

The 2003 survey was a fall composition survey so it was not a formal population estimate. However, a large number of animals were seen.

Return to footnote14 Referrer

Footnote 15

The 1993 estimate was derived by Hayes et al. (2003) using the March 1994 survey data, subtracting the number of calves and adjusting for an assumed adult mortality rate of 10%

Return to footnote15 Referrer

Footnote 16

The number of mature individuals was derived by applying the proportion of adults during the 1991 survey to the 1981 estimate

Return to footnote16 Referrer

Footnote 17

The number of mature individuals was derived by applying calf:cow and bull:cow ratios from the previous October survey to the estimate (from Hayes et al. 2003)

Return to footnote17 Referrer

Footnote 18

Includes corrected number of males based on October 1988 bull:cow ratios (Farnell et al. 1991). Total counted = 378 x SCF of 1.166 (12 of 14 collars seen) = 441 + 44 (# of bull assumed missed in March 1989 survey). Survey did not include all of current known range.

Return to footnote18 Referrer

Footnote 19

Based on 671 caribou counted in October 2000. Survey did not include all of current known range.

Return to footnote19 Referrer

Footnote 20

The number of mature individuals was derived using the proportion of adults in the classified sample (286/371) x total counted (378) = 291 x 1.166 (SCF) = 339 + 44 (bulls missed) = 383

Return to footnote20 Referrer

Footnote 21

All caribou were seen during the survey so the SCF was 1.0 (Kuzyk and Farnell 1997)

Return to footnote21 Referrer

Footnote 22

211 counted during a rut count so estimate that the herd could number up to 300 caribou (Kuzyk and Farnell 1997)

Return to footnote22 Referrer

Footnote 23

Based on 744 caribou counted during a survey in October 2002

Return to footnote23 Referrer

Footnote 24

528 caribou were counted. The expanded estimate (correcting for secondary survey blocks not surveyed) was 578 then an SCF of 1.15 was applied = 664

Return to footnote24 Referrer

Footnote 25

The ranges of the Carcross, Atlin, Swan Lake, Little Rancheria, Horseranch and Liard Plateau subpopulations straddle the Yukon/BC border

Return to footnote25 Referrer

Footnote 26

Based on 442 caribou counted during a fall composition survey in October 2007

Return to footnote26 Referrer

Footnote 27

It is unclear whether the difference between the Little Rancheria 1999 estimate and the 1988 estimate was due to a change in numbers, differing survey areas or differences in caribou distribution (and subpopulations using the survey area) so long-term trend was not calculated

Return to footnote27 Referrer

Footnote 28

339 caribou were counted. The expanded population estimate (correcting for secondary sample units not sampled) was 502 then applied SCF of 1.357 = 681

Return to footnote28 Referrer

Footnote 29

An SRB was conducted on the winter range in March 1999. The total estimate was 1817-1836 with +/-13% (90% CI). Radio-collared caribou from both the Horseranch and Little Rancheria subpopulations were present in the survey area so the estimates for each subpopulation were based on the radio-collared sample.

Return to footnote29 Referrer

Footnote 30

Since 1999, the highest count was 842 caribou counted in October 2004

Return to footnote30 Referrer

Footnote 31

Based on 806 caribou counted during a survey in October 2000. In February 2009, 505 caribou were counted on a portion of the range.

Return to footnote31 Referrer

Footnote 32

Based on 1398 caribou counted during a survey in October 1998. The estimate is based on assuming that 90% of the caribou were seen (Marshall 1999). Since 1998, the highest number counted was 898 caribou during a fall composition survey in 2011 (Jex 2011), but was not intended as a population survey.

Return to footnote32 Referrer

Footnote 33

The number of mature individuals was derived by assuming 85% adults

Return to footnote33 Referrer

Footnote 34

Based on 2145 caribou counted in March 1994. The estimate was calculated assuming that 80% of the caribou were seen.

Return to footnote34 Referrer

Footnote 35

Based on 1133 caribou counted in the Rabbit range during a sheep survey in 2007 (BC MFLNRO, unpublished data)

Return to footnote35 Referrer

Footnote 36

738 caribou were counted in the Muskwa range during a sheep survey in 2007 (BC MFLNRO, unpublished data). The population estimate is a subjective estimate based on the number counted during the 2007 survey.

Return to footnote36 Referrer

Footnote 37

There is insufficient information available to determine whether this was a full count or a partial count so this estimate should be considered a minimum number present until a full survey can be conducted, and should not be used to assess trend when a full survey is conducted. Since 2000, 101 caribou and 138 caribou were counted on portions of the Gataga range in 2001 and 2007 respectively

Return to footnote37 Referrer

Footnote 38

Return to footnote38 Referrer

Footnote 39

Since 1993, 264 were counted in 1994, 333 were counted in 1995, 377 were counted in 2000, and 266 caribou were since counted in the Pink Mountain Range during a sheep survey in 2007 (BC MFLRNO, unpublished data)

Return to footnote39 Referrer

Footnote 40

The 2009 Graham survey included 2 survey blocks not included in the 2002 survey. If those two blocks are excluded, the 2009 estimate would be 301 (95% CI=132-662). The 1989 survey included 1 survey block not included in the 2002 survey.

Return to footnote40 Referrer

Footnote 41

A survey was conducted in 2010 with an estimate of 347 but the 2009 survey is used as the estimate

Return to footnote41 Referrer

Footnote 42

The number of mature individuals was derived by applying the proportion of adults in the 2004 survey to the total counted in 1998

Return to footnote42 Referrer

Footnote 43

A number of aerial surveys have been conducted in the Telkwa Mountains since the mid-1960s. A total of 180, 271, 166 and 40 caribou were counted during fixed-wing aerial surveys in 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967. No surveys were conducted from 1969 to 1974. Between 1975 and 1981, the highest number counted during a given year ranged primarily between 30 and 40. This table lists a selection of surveys to show the general pattern of change between 1982 and 2012.

Return to footnote43 Referrer

Footnote 44

The Telkwa subpopulation was augmented with 12 caribou in 1997 and 20 caribou in 1999.

Return to footnote44 Referrer

Footnote 45

The number of mature individuals was derived by applying the proportion of adults in the 1983 survey to the total counted in 1982 (no composition data available)

Return to footnote45 Referrer

Footnote 46

The number of mature individuals was derived by applying the proportion of adults in the 1984 survey to the total counted in 1985 (no composition data available)

Return to footnote46 Referrer

Footnote 47

The population estimate is a subjective estimate based on the number counted in 2011

Return to footnote47 Referrer

Footnote 48

The population estimate is a subjective estimate based on the number counted in December 2013

Return to footnote48 Referrer

Footnote 49

The population estimate is a subjective estimate based on the 178 caribou counted in March 2002; the highest number of caribou counted since 2002 was 166 caribou in October 2008 (Cichowski 2010)

Return to footnote49 Referrer

Footnote 50

Post-calving aerial surveys were conducted annually from 1982 to 2003 (except 1993) for the Itcha-Ilgachuz subpopulation and sporadically since then. Although population size was estimated most of those years, numerical values of those population estimates were not available at the time this draft was completed so the number of caribou counted is reported here. The number of caribou counted during post-calving surveys does not necessarily represent the whole population since bulls are often underrepresented; therefore the number of mature individuals may be higher than reported here. This table lists a selection of surveys to show the general pattern of change between 1982 and 2012.

Return to footnote50 Referrer

Footnote 51

Population estimate based on mark-resight.

Return to footnote51 Referrer

Footnote 52

Total estimate of 50 based on a total of 44 caribou seen (38 adults, 6 calves). The estimated number of mature individuals was calculated by applying the proportion of adults in the survey to the total estimate of 50.

Return to footnote52 Referrer

Footnote 53

A total of 52 caribou were transplanted into vacant habitat in the Charlotte Alplands between 1984 and 1991 (Young et al. 2001).

Return to footnote53 Referrer

Footnote 54

A total of 7 caribou were seen during a goat survey that also included all high-elevation caribou habitat in the area (N. Freeman, pers. comm. 2012).

Return to footnote54 Referrer

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} Mature^{Footnote4.2Annexe 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} Mature^{Footnote4.2Annexe 3}
Scott Scott East	2007	23	18	2007	23	18
Scott Scott West	2007	25^{Footnote5.2Annexe 3}	19^{Footnote5.2Annexe 3}	2007	25^{Footnote5.2Annexe 3}	19^{Footnote5.2Annexe 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 – other^{Footnote11.1Annexe 3}	2008	(131)	(118)	2008	(131)	(118)
Narraway Redrock-Prairie Creek^{Footnote12.1Annexe 3}	1999	(478)	(401)	1999	(478)	(401)
Narraway A La Peche^{Footnote13.1Annexe 3}	1999	(123)	(106)	1999	(123)	(106)
Narraway Jasper	1989	188^{Footnote14.1Annexe 3}	145	1996	*103	*90
Narraway Tonquin	-	-	-	-	*55	*46
Narraway Maligne	-	-	-	-	*40	*37
Narraway Brazeau	-	-	-	-	*8	*7
Narraway Banff^{Footnote15.1Annexe 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/ estimate^{Footnote1.2Annexe 3} Year	Most recent survey/ estimate^{Footnote1.2Annexe 3} Survey estimate Total	Most recent survey/ estimate^{Footnote1.2Annexe 3} Survey estimate Mature^{Footnote4.2Annexe 3}	Most recent survey/ estimate^{Footnote1.2Annexe 3} Population estimate Total	Most recent survey/ estimate^{Footnote1.2Annexe 3} Population estimate Mature^{Footnote4.3Annexe 3}
Scott Scott East	2014	18	16	18	16
Scott Scott West	2007	25^{Footnote5.2Annexe 3}	19^{Footnote5.2Annexe 3}	25^{Footnote5.2Annexe 3}	19^{Footnote5.2Annexe 3}
Scott Moberly	2014	22	18	22	18
Scott Kennedy Siding	2014^{Footnote6.2Annexe 3}	30	29	30	29
Scott Burnt Pine	2013^{Footnote8.1Annexe 3}	0	0	0	0
Scott Quintette	2014^{Footnote10.1Annexe 3}	106 (98-113)	87	106 (98-113)	87
Narraway Bearhole/Red-willow	2014	*14	*13	*14	*13
Narraway Narraway – other^{Footnote11.1Annexe 3}	2012	(72)	(65)	(72)	(65)
Narraway Redrock-Prairie Creek^{Footnote12.1Annexe 3}	2012	(127)	(106)	(127)	(106)
Narraway A La Peche^{Footnote13.1Annexe 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 Banff^{Footnote15.1Annexe 3}	2009	0	0	0	0
TOTAL	-	553	469	553	469

Footnotes

Footnote 1.2

Where survey estimates were not provided in the survey report, the total number counted (minimum count) was used as the survey estimate and population estimate (indicated with an asterix [*]). Source documents for surveys in this table are listed in Appendix 3A.

Return to footnote1.2 Referrer

Footnote 2.2

This survey/ estimate is the oldest reliable survey conducted with the highest count of animals during the last 3 generations (27 years)

Return to footnote2.2 Referrer

Footnote 3.2

This survey/ estimate is the oldest reliable survey conducted with the highest count of animals during the last 2 generations (18 years)

Return to footnote3.2 Referrer

Footnote 4.2

The number of mature individuals was derived by applying the proportion of adults in the survey to the survey estimate or population estimate

Return to footnote4.2 Referrer

Footnote 5.2

No survey has been conducted for the west side of the Scott range; this estimate was based on anecdotal information and expert opinion and has not been updated so the same estimate was used for the current estimate for the purpose of assessing overall population trend. The number of mature individuals for the west side of the Scott range was derived by applying the proportion of adults during the two surveys in the east side of the Scott range to the west side estimate

Return to footnote5.2 Referrer

Footnote 6.2

Based on observations on the low-elevation winter range during the fall, the minimum population is 22 with an estimated population ranging from 25-35 (with a midpoint of 30). The number of adults was estimated by applying the proportion of adults seen (21/22) to the total population estimate of 30.

Return to footnote6.2 Referrer

Footnote 7.1

No composition data was available for this year so the number of mature individuals was calculated based on the average proportion of adults in all surveys for the subpopulation that included composition data

Return to footnote7.1 Referrer

Footnote 8.1

The last known collared caribou in the Burnt Pine subpopulation died late in 2013 (D. Seip, pers. comm. 2014) and the population estimate at this time is 0; however, ongoing monitoring of the population will confirm whether or not this subpopulation has been extirpated.

Return to footnote8.1 Referrer

Footnote 9.1

95% confidence interval

Return to footnote9.1 Referrer

Footnote 10.1

Extrapolated from a partial survey. Total population estimated at 98-113 (midpoint=106). The number of adults was estimated by applying the % of adults (82%) in the partial survey to the total estimate.

Return to footnote10.1 Referrer

Footnote 11.1

Population estimates based on 2009 population estimate of 100 caribou and mature estimate of 90 caribou (ASRD&ACA 2010) and then extrapolated back to 2008 using annual lambdas from ASRD&ACA (2010) and extrapolated to 2012 using annual lambdas from Alberta Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (unpublished data; 2010: l=0.983; 2011: l=0.904; 2012: l=0.811). Cumulative l (2008-2012) = 0.55

Return to footnote11.1 Referrer

Footnote 12.1

Population estimates based on 2009 population estimate of 212 caribou and mature estimate of 178 caribou (ASRD&ACA 2010) and then extrapolated back to 1999 using annual lambdas from ASRD&ACA (2010) and extrapolated to 2012 using annual lambdas from Alberta Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (unpublished data; 2010: l=0.866; 2011: l=0.921; 2012: l=0.749). Cumulative l (1999-2012) = 0.27

Return to footnote12.1 Referrer

Footnote 13.1

Population estimates based on 2009 population estimate of 135 caribou and mature estimate of 116 caribou (ASRD&ACA 2010) and then extrapolated back to 1999 using annual lambdas from ASRD&ACA (2010) and extrapolated to 2012 using annual lambdas from Alberta Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (unpublished data; 2010: l=0.836; 2011: l=0.880; 2012: l=0.835). Cumulative l (1999-2012) = 0.71

Return to footnote13.1 Referrer

Footnote 14.1

The subpopulation was estimated to be 175-200 caribou based on a count of 162 in October 1988 (Brown et al. 1994)

Return to footnote14.1 Referrer

Footnote 15.1

Data interpreted from figure 1 in Hebblewhite et al. 2010b. Data based on annual maximum counts and telemetry studies. The number of mature individuals was derived by applying the proportion of adults in caribou sightings in that year (Parks Canada, unpublished data) to the total number

Return to footnote15.1 Referrer

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} Mature^{Footnote4.3Annexe 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} Mature^{Footnote4.3Annexe 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	23^{Footnote6.3Annexe 4}	1999	*31	23^{Footnote6.3Annexe 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	50^{Footnote6.3Annexe 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/ estimate^{Footnote1.3Annexe 4} Year	Most recent survey/ estimate^{Footnote1.3Annexe 4} Survey estimate Total	Most recent survey/ estimate^{Footnote1.3Annexe 4} Survey estimate Mature^{Footnote4.3Annexe 4}	Most recent survey/ estimate^{Footnote1.3Annexe 4} Population estimate Total	Most recent survey/ estimate^{Footnote1.3Annexe 4} Population estimate Mature^{Footnote4.3Annexe 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	2014^{Footnote5.3Annexe 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

Footnotes

Footnote 1.3

Censuses of DU9 caribou are conducted using standardized methods and searching predetermined survey areas. Various techniques have been used to estimate number of caribou in the survey area (survey area estimate) and for the whole population (population estimate). For surveys where no radio-collared caribou are present, the survey estimate is usually equivalent to the population estimate. For surveys where radio-collared caribou are available, caribou are sometimes found outside of the survey area – animals found outside of the survey area are then incorporated into the population estimate but not the survey estimate. In this table, survey estimates are presented for assessing population trend, and the most recent population estimate is presented for assessing the current population size of caribou in DU9. For surveys where a survey estimate was not provided in the report (indicated with an asterix [*]), the estimate was calculated by applying a standardized sightability correction factor of 0.83 used for DU9 caribou surveys based on Seip (1990) and Young and Roorda (1999) to total caribou seen plus tracks. Numbers in parentheses are 90% confidence intervals, except for Wells Gray North and Barkerville, which are 95% confidence intervals. Source documents for surveys in this table are listed in Appendix 4A.

Return to footnote1.3 Referrer

Footnote 2.3

This survey/ estimate is the oldest reliable survey conducted with the highest count of animals during the last 3 generations (27 years)

Return to footnote2.3 Referrer

Footnote 3.3

This survey/ estimate is the oldest reliable survey conducted with the highest count of animals during the last 2 generations (18 years)

Return to footnote3.3 Referrer

Footnote 4.3

The number of mature individuals was derived by applying the proportion of adults in the survey to the survey estimate or population estimate, except for the 1996 Nakusp survey where an estimate of mature individuals was provided

Return to footnote4.3 Referrer

Footnote 5.3

This survey includes the Duncan subpopulation but the data for each subpopulation was not available at the time of publication

Return to footnote5.3 Referrer

Footnote 6.3

Return to footnote6.3 Referrer

Footnote 7.2

This survey was considered incomplete but it had the highest number of caribou counted in that time period

Return to footnote7.2 Referrer

Footnote 8.2

No composition data was available for this year; the only year composition was available was 2002 so the number of mature individuals was calculated based on the average proportion of adults in all surveys for the nearby Narrow Lake subpopulation that included composition data

Return to footnote8.2 Referrer

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)

Footnotes

Footnote 1.4

The 2013 survey was incomplete so the 2012 survey data is used here

Return to footnote1.4 Referrer

Footnote 2.4

Although this survey was incomplete in the southern portion of the Hart Ranges, an estimate for the southern portion of the Hart Ranges was extrapolated based on the proportion of the previous year's totals that were seen in fully surveyed portions of Hart Ranges South (Heard et al. 2013).

Return to footnote2.4 Referrer

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

Top of Page

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.

Report a problem or mistake on this page

Please select all that apply:

A link, button or video is not working

It has a spelling mistake

Information is missing

Information is outdated or wrong

I can't find what I'm looking for

Other issue not in this list

Date modified:: 2017-06-05

Language selection

Search

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

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)

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your help!