Southern mountain caribou: imminent threat assessment

Official title: Imminent threat assessment for southern mountain caribou

This assessment was based on the information available to Environment and Climate Change Canada prior to March 2018

1 Introduction

The Minister of Environment and Climate Change (the Minister) received three petitions in 2017 asking that she recommend, and that Governor in Council make, an emergency order to protect specific local population units (LPUs) of Woodland Caribou, Southern Mountain population (southern mountain caribou; SMC). All three petitions put forth the position that the Minister should form the opinion that the species is facing imminent threats in the subject LPUs on the basis of the impacts of forest harvesting and associated activities; and, in the case of the third petition, also considering the impacts of winter recreational activities. The first and second petitions, received in April 2017, were directed at the Wells Gray-Thompson and Central Kootenay LPUs, respectively. The third, received in December 2017, was directed at 10 subpopulations or herds within the following six LPUs: Central Kootenay, Kinbasket, South Monashee, Southwest Kootenay, Southeast Kootenay, Revelstoke-Shuswap. All LPUs that are the subject of petitions are in the Southern Group of southern mountain caribou (refer to the Recovery Strategy for Woodland Caribou, Southern Mountain population (“the recovery strategy”) for a description of the LPUs and Groups of southern mountain caribou).  On May 4, 2018, the Minister’s determination that southern mountain caribou is facing imminent threats to its recovery was made public. The Minister found that the species is facing threats, which are imminent in the sense that immediate intervention is required to allow for eventual recovery. The Minister also considered whether there were imminent threats to survival of the species and concluded that such threats do not exist at this time. 

The Minister came to this opinion after considering this imminent threat assessment. This imminent threat assessment, based on the best information available prior to April 20, 2018, assesses the biological condition of southern mountain caribou, ongoing and expected threats, and mitigation measures, and notes a particular concern in the following ten local population units: Central Kootenay, Southwest Kootenay, Southeast Kootenay, Kinbasket, South Monashee, Quintette, Narraway, Jasper-Banff, Redrock / Prairie Creek, Telkwa. The summary of the Minister’s analysis is found on this web page.

To respond to the initial petitions and help inform the Minister’s opinion as to whether imminent threats to survival or recovery of a species exist, the following four questions were considered:

1. is the species facing threats?
2. are the threats likely to occur?
3. a) will the effect of the threats make the survival of the species highly unlikely or impossible
   b) will the effect of the threats make achieving the recovery objectives of the species highly unlikely or impossible?
4. do the threats require immediate intervention?

If each of these four questions is answered in the affirmative, it is the view of the Department that imminent threats may exist.  These questions are referred to below as the “imminent threat questions”.

Following the receipt of the initial petitions, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) prepared an “Information to Support an Imminent Threat Assessment” report focussed on the Wells Gray-Thompson and Central Kootenay LPUs. The report was reviewed for accuracy by the Government of British Columbia and the Parks Canada Agency, who have direct management responsibility for the wildlife and land base within these two LPUs. This report was based on or considered information from the petitioners, information received from the Government of BC and others^{Footnote 1}  directly in response to the petitions, as well as publicly available information about possible additional threats throughout the entire area of the two LPUs. Where there were discrepancies between information provided by the Government of British Columbia and the Parks Canada Agency and the information provided by the petitioners and external parties, particularly with respect to caribou, predator, and alternate prey population sizes and trends, ECCC relied upon the information provided by the government agencies.  This is because the government agencies are the direct collectors of relevant data, much of which is unpublished or not publicly available. Therefore government information is more up to date and comprehensive than that of external parties who are reliant on the interpretation of published or publicly available information.

Although the three petitions referenced particular activities in specific LPUs, the Department was also in possession of other information on southern mountain caribou in other LPUs (e.g. pertaining to caribou population status and trends, natural resource major projects, provincial forestry authorizations, land tenures/applications for tenure, recreational activities, habitat disturbance estimates). The information was compiled to ensure the Minister has the best available information to respond to the petitions and fulfill her obligation under section 80 of the Act. The assessment also includes information from the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada and was developed in cooperation with the Parks Canada Agency.

Due to the complexity of the ecology of southern mountain caribou, four considerations were identified as specifically relevant in order to answer policy question 3 for this species. These biological considerations would not necessarily apply to other species. The additional considerations are: 

• caribou population size
• caribou population trend
• predation risk and associated effects of ongoing or new activities
• mitigation measures

The answers to the four imminent threat questions, including the four species-specific biological considerations comprising question 3, are based on the best information readily available for the species, as listed under Schedule 1 of SARA. The level of detail and certainty of information varies across LPUs, with the most detailed information being available for the Wells Gray-Thompson and Central Kootenay LPUs (the subjects of the initial petitions), and for LPUs in the Central Group of SMC in British Columbia, which were the subject of a protection study completed by ECCC and the BC Ministries of Environment and Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations in 2017.

There are uncertainties regarding population sizes and trends of southern mountain caribou. Highly accurate estimates of the population size of the southern mountain caribou is difficult to obtain from surveys, given challenges with seeing the animals in forested habitat. However, census data obtained from surveys does provide information of acceptable certainty to allow the size of populations to be determined relative to critically small population thresholds (e.g. approximately less than 50 or 20 animals).  Population trends are based on provincial monitoring of collared caribou and their calves. These data provide a higher level of certainty when monitoring data exists for multiple years.

There is uncertainty about the precise scope and nature of ongoing and upcoming industrial, commercial, and recreational activities; the specific impact that the various industrial, commercial, and recreational activities could have on critical habitat and on caribou, predator, and alternate prey populations; and the nature and efficacy of possible mitigation strategies.

However, there is certainty regarding long term and ongoing declines of caribou, and the impact of habitat disturbance on the species, as outlined in more detail below (COSEWIC 2014, and other sources referred in next sections).

2 Imminent threat assessment for southern mountain caribou

The following sets out the broad considerations relevant to a consideration of whether imminent threat exists for the listed species. Section 3 considers more LPU-specific details.

Southern Mountain Caribou: specific biological considerations

In recognition of the complexity of SMC ecology, species-specific considerations were reviewed to address imminent threat question 3b. The four inter-related species-specific considerations are: 1) population size; 2) population trend; 3) predation risk and associated effects of ongoing or new activities; and 4) mitigation measures. Below is an explanation of the rationale and the details of the species-specific application for each of these four considerations in turn.

Biological consideration 1: population size

1. Rationale: the population size of a LPU is a strong indicator of the likelihood of extirpation and the difficulty of recovery for several reasons:
   • The boreal caribou science assessment (Environment Canada 2011) suggests that the minimum viable population size is approximately 300 animals. This size depends on the vital rates of the population. For example, if survival and recruitment are high, the minimum viable population size could be lower, and vice versa. No estimate of minimum viable population size exists for SMC. Boreal caribou are the same species as SMC, so it may be reasonable to apply this estimate to SMC in the context of longer-term viability while assessing progress towards recovery. Populations that are somewhat smaller than 300 animals may still have a reasonable possibility of increasing to a viable population size depending on the threats facing them.
   • As indicated above, a key sub-component of the definition of self-sustaining populations in the SMC recovery strategy is an increase to a minimum of 100 caribou in LPUs with fewer than 100 animals.
   • The boreal caribou science assessment also suggests that below 100 animals one might expect serious genetic consequences.
   • The genetic effects of small population sizes are known to increase with the length of time the population size is depressed, so the longer a population remains small the more genetic diversity is lost (Lynch et al, 1995; Frankham, 2005).
   • Populations tend to decline faster at low population size and density. This is particularly the case when there is high predation and high proportions of young forest (McLellan et al., 2010; Wittmer et al, 2010).
   • LPUs with fewer than 50 animals are considered at greater risk of not recovering (Environment Canada, 2014) even in the absence of a declining trend (O’Grady et al. 2004).
   • Small populations are more susceptible to stochastic (i.e. chance) events such as avalanches (Environment Canada, 2014).
   • A population containing 8-10 mature females (or approximately 20 total animals) is considered a “point of no return” for woodland caribou below which extirpation is all but inevitable (functional extirpation), although small numbers may persist for several years because individuals are long-lived (Decesare et al, 2011; Environment Canada 2011). The ratio of males to females is also important in extremely small populations, particularly in a species like SMC where dominant males sire most of the calves in a herd.
   • Although it is possible for a single activity to make achieving the population and distribution objectives of the LPU highly unlikely or impossible for a LPU larger than 100 animals, the proximate and ultimate threats to SMC are generally the result of the cumulative effects of multiple activities and landscape-level changes.
   • Changes in annual distribution (i.e. where caribou occur within a LPU throughout the course of the year) happen when a population expands or contracts, and when caribou shift their use of seasonal habitat for various reasons. These changes may be temporary or longer lasting, and may only be detected if regular monitoring efforts are in place. The confirmed extirpation of one or more subpopulations within a LPU represents an obvious reduction in distribution.

Application to the species:

• In general, where the LPU numbers more than 100 animals considering all subpopulations within it, it is considered more likely that the population and distribution objectives in the recovery strategy could be achieved, even if one or more subpopulations become extirpated. However, other considerations could in extreme situations alter this likelihood (see other considerations).
• If the LPU numbers fewer than 100 animals, the likelihood increases that achieving the population and distribution objectives will become highly unlikely or impossible.
• If the LPU numbers fewer than 50 animals or 20 adult females, there is a very high likelihood that achieving the population and distribution objectives will become impossible, even if the population appears stable or slightly increasing.
• Measures that may improve the likelihood of recovery include direct predator and alternate prey control, maternity penning, translocation, captive breeding, etc. These measures are often controversial, have had mixed results, need to be implemented for multiple years, and the lower the caribou population size when measures are initiated, the lower the likelihood of successfully increasing caribou population size.
• Based on best available information, the following LPUs have population sizes between approximately 50 and 100 (Table 1c): Takla, Quintette.
• The following LPUs have population sizes between approximately 0 and 50 (considering the low end of population estimates where a range is provided -Tables 1a, 1b, 1c): Central Kootenay, Kinbasket, South Monashee, Southwest Kootenay, Southeast Kootenay, Telkwa, Narraway, Jasper-Banff.
• The following LPUs have population sizes between approximately 100 and 300 (Tables 1a, 1b, 1d) even after considering uncertainty: Wells Gray-Thompson, Revelstoke-Shuswap, Upper Fraser, Quesnel Highlands, Pine River, Redrock / Prairie Creek, A La Peche, Tweedsmuir, Chase.
• The following LPUs have population sizes larger than 300 even after considering uncertainty (Table 1d): Hart Ranges, Chilcotin, Wolverine. The current population size for Graham is estimated at 304, but there is considerable uncertainty around the estimate (range of 157-663 animals).

Biological considerations 2: population trend

• Rationale: the rate of population decline is the strongest correlate of extinction risk for any species (O’Grady et. al., 2004). Evidence of a decline, based on information from jurisdictions, combined with a population size of less than 100 animals further increases the likelihood that achieving the population and distribution objectives will become highly unlikely or impossible. Because there is high uncertainty around subtle population trends in woodland caribou, it is advised, as a preliminary approach, that the trend be based on the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval, where available (MacNearney and Leblond, pers.comm. 2017).

Application to the species: All ten LPUs that likely have current population sizes smaller than 100 were reported in the 2014 Recovery Strategy as having a decreasing long term (27 year) population trend, except Takla, for which the trend was reported as unknown. In some cases, preliminary data may indicate short term stabilizing or increasing population sizes, or a slowing rate of decline. In cases where population sizes are very small, these apparent trends are recent and attributed to intensive predator management, sometimes combined with maternity pens and /or management of primary prey. This would point to an increased likelihood that achieving the population and distribution objectives will become highly unlikely or impossible.

Long term population trends for the thirteen LPUs with current population sizes larger than 100 were reported in the recovery strategy as decreasing or unknown, except Chilcotin, which showed an increasing (but highly variable) long term trend for its largest subpopulation and therefore the entire LPU. Short term trends for these larger LPUs indicate a mix of declining, stabilizing, and increasing population sizes. Due to the larger population sizes, in most cases even a declining trend would not indicate that achieving the population and distribution objectives will become highly unlikely or impossible in the short term. The exception is the Redrock/Prairie Creek LPU, which does not have a current population estimate but based on ongoing declining trends may fall below 100 animals in the short term.

Additional details are provided in Section 3 – LPU-specific Details and in Tables 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d. 

Biological consideration 3: predation risk and associated effects of ongoing or new activities

• Rationale: the cumulative effects of numerous anthropogenic activities on landscape condition, which includes the possibility of critical habitat destruction, represent the ultimate threat to SMC as a result of the relationship with unsustainable predation. Some anthropogenic activities can also result in direct disturbance or displacement of individuals.

Application to the species: the presence of ongoing or new anthropogenic activities has the potential to contribute to ongoing cumulative effects and to disturb or displace individuals. In LPUs with fewer than 100 animals and a declining population trend, this further increases the likelihood that achieving the population and distribution objectives will become highly unlikely or impossible.

If there are no new or ongoing anthropogenic activities present in an LPU then the likelihood increases of achieving the population and distribution objectives for that LPU.

• An analysis of habitat and predation-related threats has been undertaken for the two LPUs that were the subject of the initial petitions (Wells Gray-Thompson and Central Kootenay). Available information on the other LPUs is presented in the following LPU-specific section. The accuracy of the information is less certain, and less precise, for the other LPUs.
• Although the sources of mortality are not known for all LPUs, the proximate threat of predation is presumed to be present to some degree in all extant LPUs. Whether predation rates are unsustainable depends on the size of the caribou population and the impact of predation. Where predation impacts are unknown, density of relevant predator populations can be a relevant consideration.
• Direct disturbance of individual caribou, which increases stress and reduces the amount of functional habitat, is also a threat where it occurs.
• Because of the mechanism by which habitat disturbance affects predator/prey dynamics, there can be a time lag between the activity and the effect on the caribou population. Depending on the nature of the activity, the effects of habitat disturbance may continue long after the activity has ended, for example as forests slowly re-grow.
• There is no known “habitat disturbance threshold” for SMC beyond which achievement of the population and distribution objectives would become highly unlikely or impossible (see above for more detailed information on habitat disturbance).

If caribou are extirpated from a LPU, the proximate threat of predation no longer immediately exists. Although theoretical recovery techniques exist to achieve the population and distribution objectives for extirpated LPUs (e.g. reintroduction through translocation and/or captive breeding), there are significant technical challenges with such techniques. Immigration from adjacent LPUs is unlikely for isolated subpopulations. Caribou are believed to have been extirpated, or functionally extirpated, from both the Kinbasket and South Monashee LPUs for the last few years. The ranges where they used to occur are geographically isolated from adjacent subpopulations. Thus, when LPUs are extirpated, recovery of that subpopulation of LPU is difficult and uncertain, and achieving the population and distribution objectives becomes highly unlikely or impossible.

Biological consideration 4: mitigation measures

• Rationale: effective mitigation measures that reverse the population trend in the short to medium term can buy time for longer-term measures to take hold and improve the likelihood of eventual recovery. The mitigation measures referred to in this context include active management of habitat, direct or indirect population management of predators, primary prey, or caribou.
  • In the long term (50 to 100 years), recovery of SMC requires habitat protection, management and restoration at a landscape scale. This is identified as an urgent priority in the 2014 federal recovery strategy (Environment Canada, 2014).
  • To ensure that caribou remain on the landscape for the time it will take to restore habitat and achieve sustainable levels of predation without ongoing intervention, the recovery strategy also identifies some direct management measures as urgent such as maternity penning, predator culls, and population management of primary prey (e.g. deer, elk, and moose). If ecological conditions are not restored, these measures are effective only for the time they are in place (e.g. Mosnier et al, 2008) and only to the degree that they are of sufficient scope and scale to reverse a decline. However, where they are in place they have the potential to mitigate the impact of predation threat on the population, to varying extents. For example, during the recent implementation of the Klinse-za program (Pine River LPU; Scott-Moberly (aka Klinse-za) subpopulation, Central Group), the caribou population has increased from 42 caribou in 2015 to approximately 61 in 2017, an average 19% annual rate of increase. This program involves a combination of predator control and maternal penning (Seip and Jones, 2016; Seip and Jones, 2017).
  • Multiple years of data are required in order to have strong evidence that caribou population size is increasing. These data, based on adults and recruited calves, need to show a trend that does not meet the COSEWIC 2002 definition for either declining or stable. Because there is high uncertainty around subtle population trends in woodland caribou, it is advised, as a preliminary approach, that the trend be based on the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (MacNearney and Leblond, pers.comm. 2017).

Hence, the final biological consideration is to assess the presence of measures that mitigate the proximate threat of unsustainable predation risk where necessary and that address ultimate threats.

Direct population management of predators, alternate prey, or caribou is currently occurring in the following LPUs: Southwest Kootenay, Revelstoke-Shuswap, Quintette, Narraway, A La Peche, Redrock/Prairie Creek, Pine River. Preliminary short term trends in the Quintette, A La Peche and Pine River LPUs appear to show caribou population size increases, and stabilization in the case of the Southwest Kootenay and Revelstoke-Shuswap LPUs, possibly in response to these predation mitigation measures (Tables 1b and 1c). However, evidence of significant improvements to habitat condition to support these efforts over a sufficient period of time to support SMC recovery is currently lacking. Predator densities in the Jasper-Banff LPU are below the targets in the federal recovery strategy, due to habitat management activities implemented by Parks Canada to reduce alternate prey, and therefore predator, density. However, the population continues to decline. The feasibility of direct management of caribou (reinforcement of the LPU via captive breeding) is currently being assessed by Parks Canada Agency.

Reviewing all 4 biological considerations together in the context of question 3 for recovery

The application of the considerations to specific LPUs is presented in Section 3 below, in the discussion of imminent threat question 3.

3 Local population unit-specific details: context for imminent threat assessment for the Southern Mountain Caribou

3.1 Wells Gray-Thompson local population unit

3.2 Central Kootenay local population unit

3.3 Other local population units

4 Overall summary regarding survival of the species

Considering all of the information available, the Department’s view is that the species would continue to survive, even if threats are not addressed in the next 2-3 years, albeit at smaller population sizes and reduced distribution. This view has considered that, although threats are present, and population sizes and distribution are declining, four LPUs still have population sizes larger than 300 animals and nine LPUs have population sizes between 100 and 300 animals.

5 Overall summary regarding recovery of the species

As stated in the federal recovery strategy, the long-term recovery goal is to achieve self-sustaining populations in all local population units within their current distribution, with sufficiently large local populations to support traditional Aboriginal harvesting activities.

Based on the best available information, southern mountain caribou:

• show significant long-term declining trends, which are ongoing in the majority of local population units
• have population sizes in 11 local population units below which achievement of self-sustaining population levels becomes increasingly unlikely
• are, in most local population units, believed to be facing unsustainable predation

Given this, the effects of the threats facing the species will make achieving the recovery objectives of the species highly unlikely or impossible without immediate intervention, including both population and habitat management measures. This considers current mitigation actions underway or planned by BC and Alberta. It is the Department’s view that the southern mountain caribou is facing imminent threats to its recovery.

The LPUs to which the effects of the threats are likely to make recovery of the southern mountain caribou highly unlikely or impossible are:

• Southern Group
  • Central Kootenay
  • Southwest Kootenay
  • Southeast Kootenay
  • Kinbasket
  • South Monashee

• Northern Group
  • Telkwa

• Central Group
  • Quintette
  • Narraway
  • Jasper-Banff
  • Redrock/Prairie Creek

For clarity, the Takla LPU is not included because, based on available information, in the short term, the population trend may be stabilizing, and there are very few planned and ongoing anthropogenic activities, such that the effects of the activities appear unlikely to make recovery impossible. All remaining LPUs, including the Wells Gray-Thompson and Revelstoke-Shuswap which were included in section 80 petitions, are not included primarily because of population sizes above 100 animals, in addition to apparent stabilizing population trends for some LPUs.

Table 1a

Table 1a notes: Population estimates are based on survey data unless otherwise noted and include all age classes. Long term population trend information is copied from the 2014 federal recovery strategy (Table 3), which notes that “Long-term trend based on a three generation (27 years) trend based on survey data for Southern and Northern Groups, and on population vital rates (radio-collared adult mortality, late winter calf recruitment) for Central Group and Tweedsmuir subpopulation of the Northern Group”.

Wells-Grey Thompson: Information provided by the Government of BC in 2017 and April 2018 indicates that an incomplete survey in 2017 counted 123 animals for the Wells Gray South subpopulation; after sightability correction factor (0.83), estimate would be some amount larger than 148 animals. For the Groundhog subpopulation, 13 caribou were counted in 2017 and 19 were counted in 2018. Although these are minimum counts, in the case of Groundhog they are thought to represent close to an actual population estimate, as the survey area is relatively small and it is unlikely that many if any caribou are missed. Survey attempts for the Wells Gray South subpopulation in 2018 were constrained by weather. No current total population size estimate is available. Very short term trends indicate the possibility of a stable-increasing population, possibly corresponding with declining moose and wolf population numbers, but these are preliminary and short term results (ECCC 2017b).

Central Kootenay: Since 2005, the Central Selkirk caribou subpopulation has been divided into the Nakusp and Duncan blocks. However, since 2010, caribou have been consistently sighted in between the Duncan and Nakusp blocks and were not technically part of either. Thus, the BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations returned to the convention of using the term “Central Selkirk” without further division into blocks (DeGroot 2014, DeGroot 2017). The “Central Selkirk” area is wholly within the “Central Kootenay” LPU used in the 2014 federal recovery strategy. The 2014 recovery strategy reported a population estimate of 66 for 2012; however, DeGroot and Furk 2012 report 89 for 2012. The February 2017 census represents a minimum count; i.e. 29 caribou were actually counted (DeGroot 2017) and includes caribou from within and between the Nakusp and Duncan blocks.

Table 1b

(except Central Kootenay, already provided in Table 1a)

Table 1b notes: Population estimates are based on survey data unless otherwise noted and include all age classes. Long term population trend information is copied from the 2014 federal recovery strategy (Table 3), which notes that “Long-term trend based on a three generation (27 years) trend based on survey data for Southern and Northern Groups, and on population vital rates (radio-collared adult mortality, late winter calf recruitment) for Central Group and Tweedsmuir subpopulation of the Northern Group”.

Kinbasket: Includes those caribou counted directly (3) and not a calculated population estimate accounting for sightability (Legebokow and Serrouya 2013). Serrouya et al. (2014) states that this LPU may be extirpated.

South Monashee: One caribou was associated with one small caribou track network observed and survey team was confident that this was the only caribou at that site. Surveyors concluded that there was only one caribou left in the known recent range of the South Monashee herd and consider the herd to be functionally extirpated (van Oort, H. and R. Laubman 2016). Three caribou were observed in 2013 (Legebokow and Serrouya 2013).

Southwest Kootenay: The 2018 census information was provided directly by the Government of BC on April 13, 2018 (unpub data). 11 animals represents a total population count for 2017 (L. DeGroot, unpub data. 2017). The South Selkirk caribou spend most of their time in Canada with occasional movements into the US (L. DeGroot, pers. comm. 2016). Total population count was 12 animals in 2016 and 14 animals in 2015 (L. DeGroot, pers.comm. 2016). Details of wolf removal are available in Government of British Columbia 2017.

Southeast Kootenay: Current population estimate for 2017 (Purcells South - 16) was provided by Province of BC, Jan 2018. The estimate for 2016 was also 16 animals. In 2011, 15 animals were counted. Purcells Central has been considered extirpated since 2005 (DeGroot 2011).

Revelstoke-Shuswap: All three subpopulations are included in the “Revelstoke” subpopulation in COSEWIC 2002. The 2014 recovery strategy reported population estimates of 183, 13, and 7 (total of 203). The source for these data are unknown. Corrected estimates for 2013 are from Legebokow and Serrouya 2013. The current population numbers were provided by Parks Canada Agency (pers.comm. 2017) and confirmed by Government of BC, Jan 2018. Information about moose reduction experiment is from Serrouya et. al. 2017. Details of wolf removal in winter 2017 are available in Government of BC 2017.

Table 1c

Table 1c notes: Population estimates are based on survey data unless otherwise noted and include all age classes. Long term population trend information is copied from the 2014 federal recovery strategy (Table 3), which notes that “Long-term trend based on a three generation (27 years) trend based on survey data for Southern and Northern Groups, and on population vital rates (radio-collared adult mortality, late winter calf recruitment) for Central Group and Tweedsmuir subpopulation of the Northern Group”.

Telkwa: Census information indicating a minimum count of 22 animals in 2017 was provided by Province of BC, January 2018; in April 2018, the Province of BC provided updated census information indicating a minimum count of 22 animals for 2018. No sightability correction factors are applied, but given survey methodology, habitat selection strategy, and the size of the population, it is unlikely that a large number of animals were missed, so the minimum counts are likely close to the actual population size. The 2016 estimate was 18 animals; 2014 was 16 animals.

Takla : During the 2015 survey, 55 adults and 12 calves were observed, for a ratio of 22 calves/100 adults, or 18% calves in the population. The total count of 70 caribou was identical to the census in 2012 (Klohn Crippen Berger 2012), but less than the census of 125 caribou in 2004 (Wilson et al. 2004). The decline between 2004 and 2012 represents a decline of 44%, or about 7% per year. Calf recruitment for the three censuses ranged from 17-20% calves in the population (Table 2), which is usually indicative of a stable population (Seip and Cichowski 1996). It is unclear why the Takla herd appears to be declining despite reasonably high calf recruitment. (Seip 2015). Subpopulation information was provided by  Province of BC, January 2018. Lack of regular surveys precludes the calculation of long term trends.

Quintette: The population estimate in 2016 was 62 animals (Seip and Jones 2016). No population estimate is provided for 2017. But the minimum population count in 2017 was 49 caribou, compared to 39 in 2016, indicating a possible population increase (Seip and Jones 2017). This is reinforced by preliminary census results for 2018 provided directly by the Government of BC (minimum count of 67; population estimate of 73). Details of wolf removal are available in Government of British Columbia 2017.

Narraway: In 2017, the minimum count (not a population estimate, but may be close to one) for Bearhole Redwillow was 9. The population estimate for South Narraway was 23 with a 95% confidence interval of 20-43. 23 was also reported as the minimum count. It was noted for both subpopulations that the minimum counts could be close to actual population sizes based on the distribution of radio-collared animals (Seip and Jones 2017). Based on Seip and Jones 2017, the total population size of Narraway LPU in 2017 may be close to the combined minimum count of 32 (range: 29-52). Government of Alberta 2017 indicates that population size of South Narraway – AB portion only is unknown (less than 50), but recent minimum counts have documented 28 animals. The 2012 estimate (96) reported in the recovery strategy was based on a 2009 population estimate of 100 caribou, extrapolated to 2012 using annual population growth estimates. Information on wolf control provided directly by provincial staff in April 2018.

Jasper-Banff: For the Tonquin, the recovery strategy provided a population estimate of 38 for 2013. This was a minimum count. Population estimate from scat DNA for the Tonquin was 45 (38-75, 95% CI). The visual survey population estimate for the Tonquin was 34 (27-64, 95% CI) (Neufeld and Bisaillon 2017). 2016 population estimate from scat DNA for the Tonquin was 31 (26-56, 95% CI). Minimum counts (not population estimates) are provided for Maligne (<5) and Brazeau (10-15) (Neufeld and Bisaillon 2017).

Table 1d

Table 1d Notes: Population estimates are based on survey data unless otherwise noted and include all age classes. Long term population trend information is copied from the 2014 federal recovery strategy (Table 3), which notes that “Long-term trend based on a three generation (27 years) trend based on survey data for Southern and Northern Groups, and on population vital rates (radio-collared adult mortality, late winter calf recruitment) for Central Group and Tweedsmuir subpopulation of the Northern Group”.

Chilcotin: Rainbows  - 32 animals in 2016 represents a minimum count. No population estimate is available. The 2008 estimate of 50 caribou was based on a fall rut survey which noted a rapid decline since 2000 (Freeman 2009). Charlotte Alplands - the most recent population survey was in 2001 (32 animals). The 2014 recovery strategy incorrectly reported a minimum count of 7 animals as a population estimate for 2012, but this was incidental data gathered during a goat survey, and only captured some high elevation caribou habitat, and no low elevation caribou habitat. The current estimate of less than 25 is reported by provincial staff. Itcha-Ilgachuz - 2012 original population estimate (1685, as noted in the 2014 recovery strategy) has a range of 1431 to 1791 (COSEWIC 2014). However, the 2012 estimate was revised due to data error. Revised 2012 population estimate is 1594 (Dodd 2014). Population estimate for Itcha-Ilgachuz in 2014 was 1346 animals (Dodd 2017b). Population estimates for 2016 were provided by the Government of BC, January 2018. The recovery strategy indicated an increasing long term trend for Itcha-Ilgachuz. Dodd 2017b reports the long term (20 year; 1994 to 2014) trend as stable, but with considerable variability.

Tweedsmuir: The following information was received from the Government of BC, Jan 2018: 2016 estimate of 165 is the midpoint between estimate of 150-180. The lower bound based on mark-recapture assessment using collars and upper bound still requiring confirmation. Estimate based on surveys in October 2015 and March 2016, and mark-capture analysis of fall 2015 survey. Minimum population count on March 16 2016 was 120 caribou (A. Roberts, pers. comm. 2016)

Wolverine: 2016 population estimate (362) based on late winter aerial inventory, corrected for sightability (Hansen and Paterson 2016). The recovery strategy indicated a decreasing long term trend, but COSEWIC 2014 reports the long term trend as stable.

Chase: 2017 population estimate (290) based on late winter aerial inventory, corrected for sightability  (Anderson and Heard 2017).

Graham: 2016 population estimate (304) based on late winter aerial inventory, corrected for sightability. Range is 157-663 (Culling and Culling 2016). 2016-17 mortality and recruitment information is from Seip and Jones 2017, who note that the data suggest the Graham herd is continuing to decline in the absence of any wolf control or other population management actions.

A La Peche: See Government of Alberta 2017.

Redrock/ Prairie Creek: See Government of Alberta 2017. Information on wolf control provided directly by provincial staff in April 2018.

Pine River: Scott East and Moberly now considered one subpopulation (Klinze-sa). Scott West is likely extirpated / trace occurrences (Sittler and McNay 2017). Other population trend information is from Seip and Jones 2017 and McNay 2017. Details of wolf removal are available in Government of British Columbia 2017.

Hart Ranges: The recovery strategy provided an estimate of 459 in 2013. However, the 2013 survey in Hart South did not include all census blocks. 2012 was a complete survey, with an estimated 404 animals in Hart South and 129 in Parsnip. 2012 population estimate (533) and 2016 population estimate (375) based on late winter aerial inventory, corrected for sightability (Klaczek and Heard 2016). Other population trend information is also from Klaczek and Heard 2016.

Upper Fraser: North Cariboo Mountains 2016 population estimate (212) based on late winter aerial inventory, corrected for sightability, and includes an estimate for an unsurveyed area (Klaczek and Heard 2016). Population estimates for 2011 and 2014 are reflected in Courtier and Heard 2014. Other population trend information is from Klaczek and Heard 2016.

Quesnel Highlands:  The 2014 Recovery Strategy reported a population estimate of 259 for 2013. This was based on a combination of counts and track estimates. The 2012 survey results (265 animals) had higher confidence (Freeman 2012), 2016 population estimate (272) based on surveys including minimum counts and tracks, corrected for sightability (subpopulation-specific correction factors) (Dodd 2017a).

Table 1a-d summary: southern mountain caribou population size and trend (by local population unit and subpopulation)

^a With some corrections to the information in the recovery strategy due to revised information from jurisdictions or the 2014 COSEWIC status report. Corrections made to the following subpopulations: the Charlotte Alplands, Itcha-Ilgachuz, Tonquin, Hart Ranges, Wells Gray North, Columbia North, Frisby–Boulder, Columbia South, South Selkirk; and the associated totals.

^b Trend data are reported by subpopulation. Rolled up, the following local population units in the Northern Group appear to show declining short term trends: the Chilcotin local population unit, the Tweedsmuir local population unit, the Chase local population unit, and the Graham local population unit. The Takla local population unit, the Telkwa local population unit, and the Wolverine local population unit may be stabilizing/increasing.

^c Trend data are reported by subpopulation. Rolled up, the following local population units in the Northern Group appear to show declining long term trends: the Tweedsmuir local population unit, the Telkwa local population unit, the Graham local population unit, and the Wolverine local population unit may be stabilizing/increasing. The Chilcotin local population unit overall may have been considered stable; the Wolverine local population unit appears stable. Insufficient data exist to calculate long-term trends for the Takla local population unit and the Chase local population unit.

^d Trend data are reported by subpopulation. Rolled up, the following local population units in the Northern Group appear to show declining short term trends: the Chilcotin local population unit, the Tweedsmuir local population unit, the Chase local population unit, and the Graham local population unit. The Takla local population unit, the Telkwa local population unit, and the Wolverine local population unit may be stabilizing/increasing.

^e Trend data are reported by subpopulation. Rolled up, the following local population units in the Central Group appear to show declining short-term trends: the Narraway local population unit, the Redrock–Prairie Creek local population unit, and the Jasper–Banff local population unit. The Pine River local population unit, the Quintette local population unit, and A La Peche local population unit may be stabilizing/increasing.

^f Trend data are reported by subpopulation. Rolled up, all but one local population unit in the Central Group show declining long-term trends. The long-term trend for the Pine River local population unit is unknown.

^g Trend data are reported by subpopulation. Rolled up, the following local population units in the Northern Group appear to show declining short term trends: the Chilcotin local population unit, the Tweedsmuir local population unit, the Chase local population unit, and the Graham local population unit. The Takla local population unit, the Telkwa local population unit, and the Wolverine local population unit may be stabilizing/increasing.

^h Trend data are reported by subpopulation. Rolled up, the following local population units in the Southern Group appear to show declining short-term trends: the Hart Ranges local population unit, the Quesnel Highlands local population unit, the Central Kootenay local population unit. The Kinbasket local population unit, South Monashee local population unit, and Southwest Kootenay local population unit have likely been extirpated. The Upper Fraser local population unit, the Revelstoke–Shuswap local population unit , the Wells Gray–Thompson local population unit, and the Southeast Kootenay local population unit may be stable, although there is considerable uncertainty with respect to short-term trends.

Table 2 background: sources of information on ongoing and new anthropogenic activities

General information about broad threats to the species is available in the 2014 recovery strategy and 2014 COSEWIC status report. Table 2 was populated using information readily available to the Department in a timely manner. The information included in Table 2 was sourced to facilitate more spatially explicit and up to date considerations.

The sources and amount of information varies by LPU. Geographic accuracy is highly variable, estimates are generally coarse, and estimates are subject to change as the list of approved activities or new applications changes frequently, and database update frequency varies. Given the vast amount of information available and the complex nature of cumulative effects, the Department carefully considered which information to include and at what level of detail was appropriate for the Minister to consider whether southern mountain caribou face an imminent threat to their survival or recovery. In general, information related to threats ranked in the 2014 recovery strategy threat assessment (section 4.1) as “negligible” is not included.

References include the following BC provincial databases, queried for overlap with the subject LPUs using various methods, including a precise GIS analysis in ArcGIS or a coarse analysis using a provincial web-based mapping program, iMapBC.

• Short term projected forest harvesting activity
  • The area of forest harvested in each LPU between 2010 and 2016 was obtained by querying the BC provincial consolidated cutblock database using GIS (Harvested Areas of BC (Consolidated Cutblocks)). This dataset depicts actual area of forest harvested each year based on a combination of tenure applications and reporting, and from satellite imagery. Those results were averaged over the seven years to obtain the average annual hectares harvested. This relatively recent average of past harvesting activity is believed to be a reasonable representation of the likely short term forecasted harvesting activity for each LPU.
• Current Land Act tenures and applications for tenures
  • Includes leases, licences, right-of-ways, and other forms of land tenure on provincial Crown land, which represents the vast majority of the land within southern mountain caribou LPU boundaries. Includes a variety of industrial, commercial, and recreational purposes. Note that the polygons do not represent the actual footprint of the activity, only the area within which the activity may take place. Records often overlap, as multiple tenures may be authorized for a given area. More specific information to refine the activity type was obtained in select cases from the Natural Resource Sector Online Services database
• Snowmobile Management Areas
  • Includes areas within Southern Group LPUs designated as open for snowmobiling with no restrictions and open with conditions according to a Stewardship Management Agreement between a local snowmobile club and the Government of BC.
• Projects subject to the BC Environmental Assessment Act, at the pre-application, application review, and certificate issued stage
  • This spatial information was cross-referenced with information from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry (i.e. projects subject to CEAA 2012), and supplemented with information from environmental assessment reports, from the following sources:
    • Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry
    • National Energy Board
    • BC Environmental Assessment Office
• Natural resource major projects; includes additional projects not subject to the BC Environmental Assessment Act
  • Natural Resource Sector Major Projects - Points

Additional information was also available for some LPUs as a result of the development of the following reports:

• Information to support an Imminent Threat Assessment for the Woodland Caribou, Southern Mountain population (Nov 9, 2017 version). (Internal report prepared by Environment and Climate Change Canada based on information received from petitioners for SARA s.80 emergency protection orders, publicly available databases, the Government of BC, and Parks Canada Agency)
• Information to Support a Protection Assessment for Woodland Caribou, Southern Mountain Population (Dec 14, 2017 version, with updates to caribou population and distribution information received from the Governments of BC and Alberta and Parks Canada Agency in January / February 2017). (Internal report prepared by Environment and Climate Change Canada)
• Canada-British Columbia Southern Mountain Caribou (Central Group) Protection Study (June 2017)
• Draft Alberta Woodland Caribou Range Plan (Dec 2017)

Finally, in situations where the Department was provided with provincial caribou census or other status reports and those reports identified specific activities as potential threats, the information is reflected directly in Table 2 or was used as a cue to source additional details. Parks Canada Agency also provided information directly for inclusion to Table 2.

Table 2: information on ongoing and new anthropogenic activities

This table has been converted to plain text.

SARA Section 80 submissions from April 2017

(more detailed information is available for these LPUs – see ECCC 2017a)

Local population unit: Wells-Grey Thompson

Subpopulations: Wells-Grey South, Groundhog

Activities

• Based on recent forest harvesting data from the Government of BC, the short term projected forest harvesting activity for this LPU is approximately 3300 ha per year.
• TMX, Harper Creek Mine, Ruddock Creek Zinc-Lead Mine at various stages of EA process
• Serpentine Creek & Clemina Creek Hydro Projects are below EA threshold; construction in progress, possibly complete.
• The largest areas of existing tenure/ongoing activities include licences of occupation for commercial heli skiing covering approx. 570,000 ha throughout the eastern half of the LPU; heli-hiking covering approx. 97,000 ha concentrated in the north of the LPU, and commercial snowmobiling in the McBride / Valemount / Albreda areas covering approx. 25,000 ha.
• The area of applications (not approved) associated with Land Act tenure after accounting for overlap is 166,751 ha (12% of LPU). The largest areas are associated with applications for licences of occupation for commercial heli-hiking; many areas overlap with existing tenure for the same purpose.

Fifteen areas covering approx. 24,000 ha of the LPU are designated by the province of BC as open for recreational snowmobiling, most of which are managed under a Snowmobiling Management Agreement with local clubs (i.e. Valemount and Area Recreation Development Association). These areas are adjacent to large areas in which snowmobiling is prohibited through regulations under the BC Wildlife Act on the basis of caribou conservation. Concentrated snowmobiling activities occur in these specifically designated “open” areas, but there are also no legal restrictions on motorized winter recreation outside of the Wildlife Act closed areas.

Local population unit: Central Kootenay

Subpopulation: Central Selkirk

Activities

• Based on recent forest harvesting data from the Government of BC, the short term projected forest harvesting activity for this LPU is approximately 1029 ha per year. 
• The largest areas of existing tenure / ongoing activities include licences of occupation for commercial heli skiing covering approx. 640,000 ha throughout the LPU; heli hiking covering approx. 77,000 ha concentrated in the north and east of the LPU; commercial cat skiing covering approx. 25,000 ha in six areas; two existing alpine ski resorts, with expansion plans (Kicking Horse, Revelstoke Mountain), one proposed alpine ski resort (Jumbo Glacier); and some commercial snowmobiling and multiple recreational use.
• The area of applications (not approved) associated with Land Act tenure is 409,296 ha (39% of LPU) after accounting for overlap,  but note that this includes miscellaneous uses under a land use plan, which significantly over-represents the area within which an activity would occur.  However, it does include new applications for commercial heli ski and cat ski tenure (approx. 35,000 ha and 4000 ha respectively), as well as a 116,000 ha application for a temporary licence for film production.

Two areas covering approx. 6500 ha of the LPU are designated by the province of BC as open for recreational snowmobiling, both of which are managed under a Snowmobiling Management Agreement with local clubs (i.e. Arrow Lakes Ridge Riders and Trout Lake Snowmobile Club). These open areas are adjacent to areas in which snowmobiling is prohibited through regulations under the BC Wildlife Act on the basis of caribou conservation. Concentrated snowmobiling activities occur in these specifically designated “open” areas, but there are also no legal restrictions on motorized winter recreation outside of the Wildlife Act closed areas.

The portion of the range within Glacier National Park is remote, and subject to very few human-related threats. Old growth forest is maintained. Fire is managed to reduce loss of habitat from severe wildfire. Guidelines are in place for aircraft flying over caribou habitat.

Species at Risk Act Section 80 submissions from December 2017

(also includes Central Kootenay)

Local population unit: Kinbasket

Subpopulation: Central Rockies

Activities

Forestry

Based on recent forest harvesting data from the Government of BC, the short term projected forest harvesting activity for this LPU is approximately 133 ha per year.

Recreation

Preliminary analysis of tenure data from the province of BC indicates that five existing licences of occupation are in place for heli-skiing, two for heli-hiking, and three for commercial recreation – multiple use; (Canadian Mountain Holidays (CMH) Adamants and other tenure) which collectively overlap very large areas of the LPU. One additional application for commercial recreation (multiple use) tenure) has been submitted but not yet approved. No information is available regarding snowmobile riding areas.

Other tenures

Existing tenures for various other purposes cover a very small area.

Local population unit: South Monashee

Subpopulation: Monashee

Activities

Forestry

Based on recent forest harvesting data from the Government of BC, the short term projected forest harvesting activity for this LPU is approximately 1381 ha per year.

Recreation

Preliminary analysis of tenure data from the province of BC indicates that three existing licences of occupation are in place for heli-skiing  (Eagle Pass Heliskiing; Canadian Mountain Holidays (CMH) Revelstoke & Kootenay operating areas), one for heli-hiking (Snotech Services -5234 ha), one for backcountry skiing (Blanket Glacier Chalet; 3227 ha) and three for commercial recreation – multiple use (Sol Mountain Touring; Kingfisher Heliskiing & Halcyon Heliskiing; Halcyon Hot Springs Resort). One 6600 ha licence of occupation for cat skiing is in place at Tsuius Mountain (Monashee Powder Snowcats). These licences of occupation collectively overlap very large areas of the LPU.

Two commercial recreation tenures are in place for snowmobiling (Carl Kuster Mountain Park and Great Canadian Snowmobile Tours). There are no areas specifically designated by the province as open for recreational snowmobiling or managed under a Stewardship Management Agreement. The Blue Lake area is publicly promoted as a snowmobile riding area.

Existing tenures for various other commercial recreation purposes cover less than 126 ha. One additional application for commercial recreation (multiple use) tenure has been submitted but not yet approved.

Other tenure

Multiple existing tenures for various other purposes cover less than 2000 ha.

Local population unit: Southwest Kootenay

Subpopulation: South Selkirk

Activities

Forestry

Based on recent forest harvesting data from the Government of BC, the short term projected forest harvesting activity for this LPU is approximately 600 ha per year.

Recreation

Preliminary analysis of tenure data from the province of BC indicates that 2 existing licences of occupation are in place for commercial recreation – multiple use (includes a large tenured area for heli-skiing [Snowwater Heli-skiing] and a small tenured area for a backcountry ski touring lodge [Baldface Mountain Lodge]); 1 licence of occupation for nordic skiing which in this case is backcountry ski touring and associated lodge / helicopter access (3200 ha tenured to Kootenay Experience [Ymir Backcountry Ski Touring]); and two small licences of occupation for commercial recreation – miscellaneous, which in this case is mountain biking (BC Enduro Series – 17 ha; Retallack Mountain Biking – 65 ha).

Licences of occupation are also in place associated with two alpine ski resorts; the larger Whitewater Ski hill (approx.1300 ha of tenured area) and smaller Salmo Ski Hill (approx. 100 ha).

No commercial recreation tenures are in place associated with snowmobiling in this LPU. At least two areas (Char Creek, Giveout Creek / Morning Mountain) are publicly promoted by snowmobile clubs, who maintain snowmobile trails and cabins on a volunteer basis (Creston snowmobile playground, Nelson Sno-Goers, Snoriders - A riding season that almost never ends).

Other tenure

Multiple existing tenures for various other purposes cover very approximately 500 ha.

Applications for tenure have been submitted for less than 30 ha.

Local population unit: Southeast Kootenay

Subpopulations: Purcells Central, Purcells South

Activities

Forestry

Based on recent forest harvesting data from the Government of BC, the short term projected forest harvesting activity for this LPU is approximately 2774 ha per year.

Recreation

Preliminary analysis of tenure data from the province of BC indicates that 22 existing licences of occupation are in place for commercial recreation, including heli-skiing (very approx. 35,000 ha tenured area – RK Heli-ski Panorama; and 10,000 ha Stellar Heli Skiing); backcountry ski touring (Powder Creek Lodge – 7100 ha and Intrawest (near Panorama – 200 ha)); heli-hiking (approx. 3000 ha tenured area – RK Heli-hiking); horse-assisted hiking (approx. less than 50,000 ha tenured area – A Bar Z).

Licences of occupation are also in place associated with two alpine ski resorts; the larger Panorama Resort (approx. 3500 ha of tenured area) and smaller Kimberly Alpine Resort (approx. 2000 ha).

Applications for commercial recreation tenure overlap entirely with existing tenured areas.

No commercial recreation tenures are in place associated with snowmobiling in this LPU. The province of BC has designated 21,000 as open for snowmobile use, and an additional 75,000 ha within which snowmobile riding is permitted on roads, cutblocks, and identified travel corridors. Concentrated snowmobiling activities occur in these specifically designated “open” areas, but there are also no legal restrictions on motorized winter recreation outside of the Wildlife Act closed areas.

Other tenure

Multiple existing tenures for various other purposes (e.g. agriculture, miscellaneous community purposes, quarrying) cover very approximately 2500 ha, and existing tenures for utilities such as electric power lines cover very approximately 3000 ha.

Applications for tenure (various purposes) have been submitted for less than 250 ha.

Local population unit: Revelstoke-Shuswap

Subpopulations: Frisby-Boulder, Columbia South, Columbia North

Activities

Forestry

Based on recent forest harvesting data from the Government of BC, the short term projected forest harvesting activity for this LPU is approximately 2000 ha per year.

Recreation

The province of BC has designated 914 ha as open for snowmobile use, and an additional 4,636 ha is open under a Stewardship Management Agreement. There are seasonal snowmobile closures in place between Jan 1 and April 15 for 218,000 ha. Over 50,000 ha are designated as provincial recreation sites or reserves for various purposes including snowmobiling, backcountry skiing, and mountain biking. Concentrated snowmobiling activities occur in these specifically designated “open” areas, but there are also no legal restrictions on motorized winter recreation outside of the Wildlife Act closed areas.

Preliminary analysis of tenure data from the province of BC indicates that 43  existing licences of occupation are in place for commercial recreation, including at least eight heli-skiing tenures (very approx.. 550,000  ha) (CMH (Monashees, Revelstoke and Gothics), Eagle Pass Heliskiing, Great Canadian Heli-skiing, Mica Heliguides, Mike Wiegele Heliguides, Selkirk Tangiers Heliskiing),  three cat skiing tenures (approx. 40,000 ha) (K3 Cat Ski, Mustang Powder Lodge, Monashee Powder Snow Cats), tenures held by five commercial snowmobile operators (Great Canadian Snowmobile Tours, Golden Snowmobile Rentals, Robert Burley, Snowpeak Rentals, Grizzly Lodge), and tenures held by five operators of backcountry huts accessed by helicopter and used as a base for ski touring or hiking (Canadian Adventure Company, Sorcerer Lodge, Selkirk Mountain Experience, Golden Alpine Holidays, Selkirk Backcountry Lodge). Heli-hiking tenures overlap with some heli-ski tenures. Many commercial recreation tenures extend into adjacent LPUs. Alpine skiing (Revelstoke Mountain Resort) tenure occurs partially in this LPU as well as the adjacent Central Kootenay LPU.

Other tenure

Multiple existing tenures for various other commercial, community, and industrial purposes cover less than 5000 ha, and existing tenures for utilities such as electric power lines also cover less than 5000 ha.

Energy

Revelstoke Generation Station Unit 6 Project - installation of a 6th turbine into an existing turbine bay. BC-only environmental assessment process (pre-application phase).

Lower Wood River Hydropower Project - Proposed; consultation and approvals stage (no EA required). Project is on hold pending an electricity purchase agreement with BC Hydro.

National parks

The portion of the range within Glacier and Mount Revelstoke national parks is subject to some threats (e.g., recreation, Trans-Canada Highway, limited development) but at a much smaller scale than threats on adjacent provincial lands, and a number of mitigation measures have been implemented. Parks Canada has closed access to Mount Klotz from December to April, and restricts backcountry camping above 1600 m in Mount Revelstoke. Seasonal trail and road closures are implemented, and some roads are not plowed for snow. Snowmobile use is limited to critical park operations. Guidelines are in place for aircraft flying over caribou habitat. Old growth forest is maintained. Fires are managed to reduce loss of habitat from severe wildfires.

Other Local population units with populations at or below 100 individuals and that were not the subject of public petitions

Local population unit: Telkwa

Subpopulation: Telkwa

Activities

Existing disturbances

ECCC 2017b (Annex 2) reports that 80% of the area likely considered to be low elevation winter range or type 1 matrix range categories of critical habitat is disturbed, using the definition of disturbance from the 2014 recovery strategy, which includes a 500 m buffer on anthropogenic features. This is based on analysis of satellite imagery from approximately 2011 and updated with wildfire data current to 2015.

Ongoing and new activities

Forest harvesting, including salvage harvest of pine beetle-killed stands, and mineral exploration are identified in Cichowski 2014 as the primary industrial activities affecting the Telkwa caribou population.

Forestry

Based on recent forest harvesting data from the Government of BC, the short term projected forest harvesting activity for this LPU is approximately 1579 ha per year.

Mining

There is a proposal for a metallurgic coal mine which falls below the threshold for a reviewable project under the BC Environmental Assessment Act. Potential impacts are yet to be determined.

There are widespread mineral claims throughout the LPU, which require exploration activities to maintain.

Recreation

Recreational activities identified in Cichowski 2014 as occurring within this LPU: snowmobiling activity; ATV use; hiking; backcountry skiing; horseback riding. The B.C. government and the Houston Snowmobile Club signed a stewardship management agreement in December 2017; voluntary closures have been in place for a number of years. Users are directed to avoid areas with caribou, and locations of collared animals are regularly updated on social media. Specified areas are designated as open for snowmobile use. Existing commercial recreation tenures are for guided mountaineering / rock climbing, and guided nature viewing.

Energy

Coastal Gaslink (Pipeline) - BC Environmental Assessment certificate has been issued (following a finding of significant adverse environmental effects for caribou and greenhouse gas emissions). No federal EA decision is required. Permits and tenure are in place; project is awaiting financing, which is linked to financial decisions on whether the LNG Canada project will proceed.

Pacific Northern Gas (PNG) Looping (Pipeline) - BC-only process at the pre-application phase. No EA documents have been filed since 2014. Water Act authorizations and Investigative Use Permits were issued by the Oil and Gas Commission in 2014.

Local population unit: Takla

Subpopulation: Takla

Activities

Existing disturbances

ECCC 2017b (Annex 2) reports that 58% of the area likely considered to be low elevation winter range or type 1 matrix range categories of critical habitat is disturbed, using the definition of disturbance from the 2014 recovery strategy, which includes a 500 m buffer on anthropogenic features. This is based on analysis of satellite imagery from approximately 2011 and updated with wildfire data current to 2015.

Ongoing and new activities

Forestry

Based on recent forest harvesting data from the Government of BC, the short term projected forest harvesting activity for this LPU is approximately 1029 ha per year

Recreation

There are no commercial recreation tenures in place or applied for in this LPU, and no provincially designated open snowmobile areas. Backcountry recreation is not actively promoted in the area. Ad hoc snowmobiling likely occurs primarily as a means of transportation and access to hunting areas. 

Local population unit: Quintette

Subpopulation: Quintette

Activities

Existing disturbances

Canada and BC (2017) report that 54-58% of the area likely considered to be low elevation winter range or type 1 matrix range categories of critical habitat is disturbed, using the definition of disturbance from the 2014 recovery strategy, which includes a 500 m buffer on anthropogenic features. This is based on analysis of satellite imagery from approximately 2011.

ECCC 2017b (Annex 2) notes that uncertainty exists about how disturbance in high elevation ranges should be quantified. The direct footprint of anthropogenic features visible on Landsat imagery from 2011 is estimated at 6% of the high elevation habitat in the portion of this LPU that does not overlap with Narraway. With a 500m buffer added, the area becomes 24%. With various zones of influence depending on feature type added, the area becomes 63%.  In the portion of the LPU that overlaps with Narraway, the direct footprint is 3% of the area; 9% with a 500 m buffer; and 28% with zones of influence.

Ongoing and new activities

Mining

21% of high elevation habitat and 24% of non-high elevation habitat in the combined area of Quintette, Pine River, and Narraway LPUs in BC is currently tenured for coal leases or licences (Canada and BC 2017). The majority of these tenures are in the Quintette LPU. Tenure does not imply development is guaranteed to occur, and site-specific activities occur within a smaller area than tenured. However, mineral exploration activities and mine development potential is higher within tenured areas.

In terms of new and likely upcoming activities, the Murray River Coal Mine Project will be an underground mine located in Type 1 matrix critical habitat. On October 7, 2016 the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada decided that the Murray River Coal Project is likely to cause significant adverse cumulative environmental effects to the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by Aboriginal Peoples, due to cumulative adverse environmental effects on the Quintette LPU of southern mountain caribou. The Environmental Assessment Decision Statement was issued to the proponent on December 13, 2017 indicating that the Governor in Council decided that the likely significant adverse environmental effects are justified in the circumstances and establishing a series of conditions including 7.12 through 7.15 relating to caribou. Hermann Coal Mine (an expansion of the existing Wolverine Mine) has a provincial EA certificate in place, with caribou-related conditions. It will be located in high elevation critical habitat. The deadline for a substantial start is Nov 2018. Sukunka Coal Mine Project is currently undergoing EA review by both CEAA and BC EAO through a substituted process. Preliminary information suggests it would result in the loss of high elevation critical habitat and additional disturbance of low elevation and/ or matrix critical habitat. Additional mining projects are in the pre-application (Echo Hill Coal) or exploratory (Bullmoose River Coal) phase of environmental assessment.       

Energy

Most of the wind project developments in the province of BC are located in the South Peace region, which includes the Quintette LPU range. One new project is currently underway; the Moose Lake Wind Power project has an electricity purchase agreement in place with BC Hydro, an Occupant Licence to Cut has been issued for tree removal (planned block area of 260 ha), and construction started in July 2016. Three projects are unconfirmed; Sukunka Wind Energy, Wolverine Wind, and Babcock Ridge Wind Power projects all have provincially approved development plans in place (below EA threshold), but do not yet have an electricity purchase agreement with BC Hydro. Finally, Thunder Mountain Wind Park has a BC EA certificate in place, with a deadline for substantial start of Dec 2019. All permitting is in place but there is no agreement from BC Hydro to purchase power, and such an agreement is unlikely in the short term in light of Site C approval.

Oil and Gas – approximately 75% of the Quintette range contains existing tenure that has already been heavily developed for conventional gas.  Some of the tenure remains to be developed.  However, this development is expected to be delayed while Montney unconventional shale gas development occurs in other areas, and then to proceed very slowly.  Little conventional development activity is expected in the next 20 to 30 years, and even then it is expected to be at a very slow pace (Canada and British Columbia 2017). A small area in the extreme northeastern part of Quintette range is within the Montney resource play area.  Therefore, development is expected here, but will depend on the timing of the arrival of gas markets.  If the export market for LNG proceeds in the next 5 years then development is expected in this area over the next 25 years.  If LNG proceeds in the next cycle in about 15 years, Montney gas development is expected to proceed over the ensuing 25 years.  Otherwise, development is dependent on domestic western Canadian markets.

Forestry

Based on recent forest harvesting data from the Government of BC, the short term projected forest harvesting activity for this LPU is approximately 1712 ha per year

The combined area of Quintette, Pine River, and Narraway LPUs in BC is approximately 3 million hectares. 14% of high elevation habitat and 46% of non-high elevation habitat in this combined area is inside the timber harvesting landbase. Those areas, unless otherwise constrained, are assumed to be harvested at some point in a normal forest rotation (between 80 and 100 years). Any particular stand has a low probability of being harvested in the short term, but a high probability of being harvested in the long term. (Canada and BC 2017).

Recreation

The Babcock, Bullmoose, and Wolverine areas are publicly promoted (Snoriders - Where to ride around Tumbler Ridge) as popular snowmobile and ATV riding areas and are located adjacent to high elevation caribou habitat, potentially facilitating predator access from low to high elevation.

Local population unit: Narraway

Subpopulation: Narraway

Activities

Existing disturbances

Canada and BC (2017) report that 45-50% of the area likely considered to be low elevation winter range or type 1 matrix range categories of critical habitat is disturbed, using the definition of disturbance from the 2014 recovery strategy, which includes a 500 m buffer on anthropogenic features. This is based on analysis of satellite imagery from approximately 2011. Government of Alberta (2017) indicates that 84% of the Alberta portion of the LPU is disturbed, primarily attributed to seismic lines and forest harvesting (including a 500m buffer).

ECCC 2017b (Annex 2) notes that uncertainty exists about how disturbance in high elevation ranges should be quantified. The direct footprint of anthropogenic features visible on Landsat imagery from 2011 is estimated at 2% of the high elevation habitat in the portion of this LPU that does not overlap with Quintette. With a 500 m buffer added, the area becomes 4%. With various zones of influence depending on feature type added, the area becomes 16%.  In the portion of the LPU that overlaps with Quintette, the direct footprint is 3% of the area; 9% with a 500 m buffer; and 28% with zones of influence.

Ongoing and new activities

Forestry and oil & gas remain the main industrial land uses in the Alberta portion of the LPU; one Forest Management Agreement covers 100% of the Alberta portion of the range, and 88% is subject to leases or permits for petroleum and natural gas. 9% is associated with leases or permits for metallic and industrial minerals (Government of Alberta 2017).   

The combined area of Quintette, Pine River, and Narraway LPUs in BC is approximately 3 million hectares. 14% of high elevation habitat and 46% of non-high elevation habitat in this combined area is inside the timber harvesting landbase. Those areas, unless otherwise constrained, are assumed to be harvested at some point in a normal forest rotation (between 80 and 100 years). Any particular stand has a low probability of being harvested in the short term, but a high probability of being harvested in the long term (Canada and BC 2017).

Based on recent forest harvesting data from the Government of BC, the short term projected forest harvesting activity for the BC portion of this LPU is approximately 583 ha per year.

Queries of provincial (BC) databases indicate that Bearpaw Heli-Skiing Ltd has a 451,011 ha Licence of Occupation for commercial recreation, approximately half of which overlaps with the Narraway LPU. Crescent Spur Heli Holidays has an active forestry Occupant Licence to Cut with a planned harvest date of 2011 but no indication that disturbance has started. The Gleason, Sande Burn, Lower Torpy River, and Evanoff Park areas are provincially designated as open areas for snowmobiling, and cover a total of 13,000 ha. These recreational activities are located in the southern part of Narraway range, which overlaps with the Hart Ranges LPU.

Future or less likely activities

About 10 to 15% of the BC portion of the Narraway range in the farthest north is within the Montney unconventional shale gas resource play.  Therefore, development is expected here, but depending on the timing of the arrival of gas markets.  If the export market for LNG proceeds in the next 5 years then development is expected in this area over the next 25 years.  If LNG proceeds in the next cycle in about 15 years, Montney gas development is expected to proceed over the ensuing 25 years if it has not occurred in the first LNG cycle.  Otherwise, development is dependent on domestic western Canadian markets (Canada and BC 2017).

The Belcourt/ Saxon Coal Mines are at a preliminary scoping stage for environmental assessment.

The Red Willow Wind Farm is at the pre-application stage for a BC Environmental Assessment. It is on hold pending a clean power call from BC Hydro, which is considered unlikely within the next decade given Site C approval.

Local population unit: Jasper-Banff

Subpopulation (s): Tonquin, Maligne, Brazeau, Banff

Activities

Ongoing and new activities

Activities present and ongoing in this LPU include backcountry recreation in both winter and summer, and commercial infrastructure development including a downhill ski area. These are at a smaller scale than activities outside national parks.

Parks Canada Agency has managed public backcountry winter recreational activities in Jasper National Park in an adaptive manner, considering caribou conservation and visitor experience, primarily by enforcing winter closures in areas frequented by caribou in early winter. Human activity is managed to reduce probability of disturbance of caribou (e.g. dogs prohibited in caribou habitat, trails re-routed to avoid key caribou areas, guidelines for aircraft flying over caribou habitat). Speed limits have been reduced in key caribou corridors to reduce caribou mortality. The Banff subpopulation has been extirpated since 2009, so recreational activities in Banff National Park are not specifically managed for caribou conservation. Throughout the LPU, habitat and primary prey are managed to reduce predator density, and fire is managed to reduce loss of habitat from severe wildfires.

Other Local population units with populations larger than 100 individuals and that were not the subject of public petitions

Local population unit: Upper Fraser

Subpopulation (s): North Cariboo Mountains, George Mountain, Narrow Lake

Activities

Ongoing and new activities

Forestry

Based on recent forest harvesting data from the Government of BC, the short term projected forest harvesting activity for this LPU is approximately 1100 ha per year.

Mining

Giscome Quarry and Lime Plant - BC Environmental Assessment Certificate was issued in December 2016; no federal EA approval required. Applications for permits under the provincial Environmental Management Act and Mines Act were accepted by the Major Mines Permitting office in February 2017 (Giscome Lime Project Newsletter # 6 March 2017). The project is located on the periphery of this LPU. The BC Environmental Assessment Office determined during review of the project that suitable habitat did not exist in large enough quantities in the local study area to be sustainable for supporting caribou, and were satisfied that the project would not have adverse effects on caribou and caribou habitat (Giscome Quarry and Lime plant project - assessment report).

Recreation

Preliminary analysis of tenure data from the province of BC indicates that 11 existing licences of occupation are in place for commercial recreation, including approximately 160,000 ha tenured for heli-skiing, approximately 1000 ha for heli-hiking and less than 1000 ha for commercial snowmobiling. Less than 1000 ha is tenured for alpine skiing.

Other tenure

Preliminary analysis of tenure data from the province of BC shows less than 9000 ha tenured for a variety of purposes, including approximately 5000 ha associated with the investigative and monitoring phase of windpower development, approx. 1300 ha for quarrying, and approximately 1100 ha reserved under section 16 of the Land Act for a First Nations treaty area. Applications have been submitted for an additional less than 7000 ha, the majority of which is associated with an application for commercial recreation (multiple use; snowmobiling and horseback riding).

Local population unit: Quesnel Highlands

Subpopulation (s): Barkerville, Wells Gray North

Activities

Forestry

Based on recent forest harvesting data from the Government of BC, the short term projected forest harvesting activity for this LPU is approximately 3408 ha per year.

Other information not yet gathered.

Local population unit: Pine River

Subpopulation (s): Scott/Moberly (Klinse-za), Kennedy Siding, Burnt Pine

Activities

Existing disturbances

Canada and BC (2017) report that 62% of the area likely considered to be low elevation winter range or type 1 matrix range categories of critical habitat is disturbed, using the definition of disturbance from the 2014 recovery strategy, which includes a 500 m buffer on anthropogenic features. This is based on analysis of satellite imagery from approximately 2011.

ECCC 2017b (Annex 2) notes that uncertainty exists about how disturbance in high elevation ranges should be quantified. The direct footprint of anthropogenic features visible on Landsat imagery from 2011 is estimated at 0.9% of the high elevation habitat in this LPU. With a 500m buffer added, the area becomes 7%. With various zones of influence depending on feature type added, the area becomes 15%.  

Ongoing and new activities

Forestry

Based on recent forest harvesting data from the Government of BC, the short term projected forest harvesting activity for this LPU is approximately 4432  ha per year.

The combined area of Quintette, Pine River, and Narraway LPUs in BC is approximately 3 million hectares. 14% of high elevation habitat and 46% of non-high elevation habitat in this combined area is inside the timber harvesting landbase. Those areas, unless otherwise constrained, are assumed to be harvested at some point in a normal forest rotation (between 80 and 100 years). Any particular stand has a low probability of being harvested in the short term, but a high probability of being harvested in the long term. (Canada and BC 2017).

Mining

21% of high elevation habitat and 24% of non-high elevation habitat in the combined area of Quintette, Pine River, and Narraway LPUs in BC is currently tenured for coal leases or licences (Canada and BC 2017). Some of these tenures are in the Pine River LPU. Tenure does not imply development is guaranteed to occur, and site-specific activities occur within a smaller area than tenured. However, mineral exploration activities and mine development potential is higher within tenured areas.

Carbon Creek Coal Mine is substituted project at the pre-application phase. Possible impacts are thus far unquantified. The project overlaps with approximately 1100 ha of land within the LPU boundaries. The Gething Coal Mine is a potential future project at the pre-application phase with no filings submitted to the BC Environmental Assessment Office since 2011. 

Oil and Gas Development

Canada and BC 2017 indicate that the entire Pine River range is west of and outside any unconventional Montney resource play; therefore no Montney development will occur.  Due to the nature of the geology and absence of hydrocarbon reservoirs, there is no oil and gas potential in the west half of the Pine River range. A small area in the southeast contains existing title, but it has been developed and no further activity is expected. 
The remaining area of the eastern part of the range contains conventional gas potential but there is no current title and no interest in conventional exploration, for the reasons noted in the general comments above.  Therefore, no conventional exploration is expected in the next 50 years or more.

Pipelines

High Pine Expansion project – the National Energy Board issued an order under section 58 of the National Energy Board Act in 2016. Conditions attached to the order were intended to address residual impacts to caribou habitat, which was estimated by the proponent to be direct disturbance of 101 ha of matrix habitat and indirect disturbance of 25 ha of matrix habitat, including 14 km of new linear disturbance. Right of way clearing began in 2016; construction began in 2017 and was expected to continue into early 2018. Cleanup and reclamation is scheduled for July – October 2018 (2015-10-15 - Application for the High Pine Expansion Project). 2BL Crossover Assemblies Replacement Project (Pipeline replacement) NEB s.58.

Wyndwood Pipeline Expansion project- the National Energy Board issued an order under section 58 of the National Energy Board Act in September 2017. At the time of the order, the project was estimated to intersect the Pine River LPU for 11.8 km, 4.4 km of which would be new permanent linear disturbance. The proponent predicted the project would result in 49 ha of direct disturbance and 354 ha of indirect disturbance to Type 1 matrix critical habitat. Conditions attached to the order were intended to address residual impacts to caribou habitat. Construction activities were still in progress as of January 2018 (2016-10-21 - Application for the Wyndwood Pipeline Expansion Project (GH-001-2017)).

Local population unit: A La Peche

Subpopulation: A La Peche

Activities

Existing disturbances

Government of Alberta (2017) indicates that 88% of the low elevation winter range is disturbed, primarily attributed to seismic lines and forest harvesting (including a 500m buffer). Summer range areas which include Jasper National Park and Wilmore Wilderness Park are considerably less disturbed; the portion of the summer range which is under Alberta’s jurisdiction is 8% disturbed.

Ongoing and new activities

The entire winter range is allocated for forest harvesting and 95% has been made available for petroleum and natural gas development, according to Government of Alberta (2017). Other industrial activities within the winter range include metallic and industrial minerals, and sand and gravel extraction.

No information is currently available regarding recreational or other activities.

The portion of the range within Jasper national park is subject to very few human-related threats. Parks Canada has also implemented conservation measures within the portion of the range in the national park, such as implementing fire management activities to reduce loss of habitat from severe wildfires and implementing winter closures to key caribou areas in early winter.

Local population unit: Redrock/Prairie Creek

Subpopulation (s): Redrock/Prairie Creek

Activities

Existing disturbances

Government of Alberta (2017) indicates that 71% of the winter range is disturbed, primarily attributed to legacy seismic lines and forest harvesting (including a 500 m buffer). Summer range areas (high elevation) are reported as 18% disturbed, presumably using the same methodology, but note that the application of a 500 m buffer may not be appropriate for calculating high elevation disturbance.

Ongoing and new activities

24% of the range is tenured for forest harvesting, 30% has been made available for petroleum and natural gas development, and 34% is tenured for coal mining and sand and gravel extraction, according to Government of Alberta (2017).

Information has not yet been gathered regarding recreational or other activities.

Local population unit: Hart Ranges

Subpopulation (s): Hart South, Parsnip

Activities

Forestry

Based on recent forest harvesting data from the Government of BC, the short term projected forest harvesting activity for this LPU is approximately 1168 ha per year.

Other information not yet gathered.

Local population unit: Chilcotin

Subpopulation (s): Rainbows, Charlotte Alplands, Itcha-Ilgachuz

Activities

Existing disturbances

ECCC 2017b (Annex 2) reports that 57% of the area likely considered to be low elevation winter range or type 1 matrix range categories of critical habitat is disturbed, using the definition of disturbance from the 2014 recovery strategy, which includes a 500 m buffer on anthropogenic features. This is based on analysis of satellite imagery from approximately 2011 and updated with wildfire data current to 2015.

Ongoing and new activities

Forestry

Based on recent forest harvesting data from the Government of BC, the short term projected forest harvesting activity for this LPU is approximately 4113 ha per year.

Caribou Hunting

The Wildlife Act Limited Entry Hunting Regulation indicates that there is a limited entry hunt for 5 point bull caribou in Wildlife Management Units (WMUs) (i.e. administrative areas designated by the Government of BC for the purposes of administering the BC Wildlife Act) that overlap with parts of the ranges of the Itcha-Ilgachuz subpopulation, and that between 1 and 150 authorizations may be issued for the fall hunting season.

Recreation

Preliminary analysis of tenure data from the province of BC indicates that 18 existing licences of occupation are in place for commercial recreation, including tenures for “multiple use”, guided nature viewing, heli-skiing and trail riding. The tenures apply to approximately 380,000 ha, but this does not account for overlap.

Other tenures

Preliminary analysis of tenure data from the province of BC indicates that authorisations are in place for approximately 17,000 ha for purposes including agriculture, quarrying, ‘planning/marketing/development projects’, and other miscellaneous purposes.

Local population unit: Wolverine

Activities

Existing disturbances

ECCC 2017b (Annex 2) reports that 53% of the area likely considered to be low elevation winter range or type 1 matrix range categories of critical habitat is disturbed, using the definition of disturbance from the 2014 recovery strategy, which includes a 500 m buffer on anthropogenic features. This is based on analysis of satellite imagery from approximately 2011 and updated with wildfire data current to 2015.

Ongoing and new activities

Forestry

Based on recent forest harvesting data from the Government of BC, the short term projected forest harvesting activity for this LPU is approximately 3417  ha per year. The recovery strategy indicates that increased forest harvesting and associated expansion of roads due to pine beetle salvage is expected on most annual ranges in the Northern Group (including Wolverine).

Caribou hunting

There are open or limited entry hunting seasons for 5 point bull caribou in Wildlife Management Units (WMUs) (i.e. administrative areas designated by the Government of BC for the purposes of administering the BC Wildlife Act) that overlap with parts of the ranges of the Chase and Wolverine subpopulations. There is a bag limit of one animal and fall timing restrictions (see Hunting Regulation sections 4, 10, 11, and Schedules 5, 6, and 7 in particular). The 5-year projected allocation for 2017-21 is a total of 27 bull caribou (average of 5.4 animals per year for resident and guide hunters collectively) across the entire “region 6 – Skeena” which includes some of these WMUs, as well as WMUs occupied by Woodland Caribou, Northern Mountain population (a different SARA-listed species, which is listed as Special Concern).

Local population unit: Graham

Activities

Existing disturbances

ECCC 2017b (Annex 2) reports that 66% of the area likely considered to be low elevation winter range or type 1 matrix range categories of critical habitat is disturbed, using the definition of disturbance from the 2014 recovery strategy, which includes a 500 m buffer on anthropogenic features. This is based on analysis of satellite imagery from approximately 2011 and updated with wildfire data current to 2015.

Ongoing and new activities

Forestry

Based on recent forest harvesting data from the Government of BC, the short term projected forest harvesting activity for this LPU is approximately 412 ha per year. The recovery strategy indicates that increased forest harvesting and associated expansion of roads due to pine beetle salvage is expected on most annual ranges in the Northern Group (including Graham).

Pipelines

North Montney Mainline – NEB and BC EA certificates are issued, construction expected to begin during the first half of 2018, pending additional approvals. The project footprint overlaps with 8 km of non-high elevation range within the LPU, and is contiguous with existing linear features for all but 1.5 km.

Mines

Aley Niobium Mine is a substituted process at the pre-application phase of EA. No documents have been filed by the proponent since 2014. Potential impacts are thus far unquantified.

Other information not yet gathered.

Local population unit: Tweedsmuir

Activities

Existing disturbances

ECCC 2017b (Annex 2) reports that 57% of the area likely considered to be low elevation winter range or type 1 matrix range categories of critical habitat is disturbed, using the definition of disturbance from the 2014 recovery strategy, which includes a 500 m buffer on anthropogenic features. This is based on analysis of satellite imagery from approximately 2011 and updated with wildfire data current to 2015.

Ongoing and new activities

Forestry

Based on recent forest harvesting data from the Government of BC, the short term projected forest harvesting activity for this LPU is approximately 2380 ha per year. The recovery strategy indicates that increased forest harvesting and associated expansion of roads due to pine beetle salvage is expected on most annual ranges in the Northern Group (including Tweedsmuir).

Mines

Huckleberry Mine was constructed in 1997, primarily extracting copper as well as molybdenum, gold, and silver. An expansion was approved in 2012; the mine was anticipated to be operational until at least 2021, but was put into care and maintenance status in August 2016, pending a sustained improvement in the price of copper. The property encompasses 19,780 ha.

Blackwater Gold is currently undergoing review by CEAA and the BC EAO. As such, potential impacts are yet to be determined. 

There are widespread mineral and placer claims (over 2,500 km²) throughout the LPU, which require exploration activities to maintain.

Energy

Some investigative licenses for windpower are in place, but site-specific disturbances are much smaller than the tenured area.

Recreation

Levels of recreational activities are relatively low throughout the range, with some summer guided angling, hiking, and hunting services based out of scattered lodges or cabins. ATV use may be higher in a few locations. In winter, some ad hoc snowmobiling occurs in a portion of the winter range.

Local population unit: Chase

Activities

Existing disturbances

ECCC 2017b (Annex 2) reports that 43% of the area likely considered to be low elevation winter range or type 1 matrix range categories of critical habitat is disturbed, using the definition of disturbance from the 2014 recovery strategy, which includes a 500 m buffer on anthropogenic features. This is based on analysis of satellite imagery from approximately 2011 and updated with wildfire data current to 2015.

Forestry

Based on recent forest harvesting data from the Government of BC, the short term projected forest harvesting activity for this LPU is approximately 994  ha per year. The recovery strategy indicates that increased forest harvesting and associated expansion of roads due to pine beetle salvage is expected on most annual ranges in the Northern Group (including Chase).

Caribou Hunting

There are open hunting seasons for 5 point bull caribou in Wildlife Management Units (WMUs) (i.e. administrative areas designated by the Government of BC for the purposes of administering the BC Wildlife Act) that overlap with parts of the ranges of the Chase and Wolverine subpopulations. There is a bag limit of one animal and fall timing restrictions (see Hunting Regulation sections 4, 10, 11, and Schedules 5, 6, and 7 in particular). The 5-year projected allocation for 2017-21 is a total of 27 bull caribou (average of 5.4 animals per year for resident and guide hunters collectively) across the entire “region 6 – Skeena” which includes some of these WMUs, as well as WMUs occupied by Woodland Caribou, Northern Mountain population (a different SARA-listed species, which is listed as Special Concern).

References

Anderson, M. and D. Heard. Total count of caribou in the Chase herd, north-central BC, March 2017. BC Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Omineca Region.

Cichowski, D. 2014. Telkwa Caribou Population Status and Background Information Summary. Prepared for BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

Cichowski, D. and S. Haeussler. 2013 The Response of Caribou Terrestrial Forage Lichens to Forest Harvesting and Mountain Pine Beetles in the East Ootsa and Entiako Areas: Ann. Rept. - 2012/13 - Year 11. Smithers, BC.

COSEWIC. 2002. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Woodland caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou in Canada. Ottawa, pp 98.

COSEWIC. 2014. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Caribou Rangifer tarandus, Northern Mountain population, Central Mountain population and Southern Mountain population in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, ON.

Canada and British Columbia. 2017. Canada-British Columbia Southern Mountain Caribou (Central Group) Protection Study.

Courtier, J. and D. Heard. 2014. North Cariboo Mountains and Narrow Lake Census 2014. Omineca Wildlife Branch. Prince George, BC. 8 p.

Culling, D.E. and B.A. Culling. 2016. Graham Caribou Herd Late Winter Inventory: March 8-9, 2016. Prepared for: Fish and Wildlife Conservation Program: Peace Project No. PF16-W12

Decesare, N. J., J. Whittington, M. Hebblewhite, H. Robinson, M. Bradley, L. Neufeld, and M. Musiani 2011. The role of translocation in recovery of woodland caribou populations. Conservation Biology, 25(2), 365-373.

DeGroot, L. 2011. 2011 Mountain Caribou Census: South Purcell Mountains. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Nelson, British Columbia.

DeGroot, L. 2014. 2014 Mountain Caribou Census Central Selkirk Mountains. BC Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

DeGroot, L. 2017. 2017 Mountain Caribou Census: Central Selkirk Mountains. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Nelson, British Columbia.

DeGroot, L. and K. Furk 2012 2012 Mountain Caribou Census Central Selkirk Mountains. BC Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

Dodd, N. 2014. Review of the 2012 Itcha-Ilgachuz Northern Caribou Population Estimate. BC Ministry of Environment, Cariboo Region. Internal report.12 pp.

Dodd, N. 2017a. Mountain Caribou Population Status for the Wells Gray North, Barkerville and North Cariboo Mountains-Bowron Sub-Populations, Cariboo Region, 2015 to 2016. BC. Ministry of Environment. Internal report. 22 pp.  

Dodd, N. 2017b. Population Status of the Itcha-Ilgachuz Northern Caribou Herd, 2014 to 2015. BC. Ministry of Environment. Internal report. 24 pp.

Festa-Bianchet, M., J.C. Ray, S. Boutin, S.D.Côté, and A. Gunn. 2011. Conservation of caribou (Rangifer tarandus) in Canada: an uncertain future. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 89(5), 419-434.

Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2017a (Nov 9 draft). Information to support an Imminent Threat Assessment for the Woodland Caribou, Southern Mountain population. 41 p. (internal report)

Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2017b (Dec. 14 draft) Information to Support a Protection Assessment for Woodland Caribou, Southern Mountain Population. 73 p. (internal report)

Environment Canada. 2014. Recovery Strategy for the Woodland Caribou, Southern Mountain population (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. viii + 103 pp.

Environment Canada, 2011. Scientific Assessment to Inform the Identification of Critical Habitat for Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada: 2011 update. Ottawa, ON. 115pp. plus Appendices.

Frankham, R. 2005. Genetics and extinction. Biological Conservation, 126(2), 131-140.

Freeman, N. 2008. Motorized backcountry recreation and stress response in Mountain Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou). M.S. thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Freeman, N. 2009. Summary of the 2008 rut survey for the Rainbow Mountains caribou herd.  Unpublished Report. Wildlife Branch, Environmental Stewardship Division Ministry of Environment, Williams Lake BC. 8 pp.

Freeman, N. 2012. 2012 Mountain Caribou Census of the Wells Gray North and Barkerville Sub-Populations. Internal report. Ministry of Environment, Cariboo Region, Williams Lake

Government of Alberta. 2017. Draft Provincial Woodland Caribou Range Plan. 135 pp. Unpublished report.

Government of British Columbia. 2017. Wolf Management Plan for Caribou - Summary Year Three – 2016-17. 2pp. Internal report.

Hansen, I.J. and B. Paterson. 2016. Wolverine Caribou Herd Population Estimate 2016. Prepared for Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

HeliCat Canada. 2016. A social and economic impact assessment of helicopter and snowcat skiing in British Columbia.

HeliCat Canada. 2017. HeliCat Canada Annual Report 2017.

Kelsall, J.P. 1984. COSEWIC status report on the woodland caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 103 pp.

Klaczek, M. and D. Heard. 2016. Population assessment of Southern Mountain Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) in the Prince George Forest District.

Klohn Crippen Berger Ltd. 2012. Winter caribou study. Aerial-based census results for the Takla caribou herd March 2012. Klohn Crippen Berger Ltd., Vancouver, BC. Prepared for Caracle Creek International Consulting.

Legebokow, C. and R. Serrouya. 2013. Population censuses of mountain caribou in the North Columbia Mountains: March 2013 - Columbia North, Columbia South and Frisbee-Queest subpopulations. 19 p.

Lesmerises, F.; F. Déry, C.J. Johnson, M-H. St-Laurent. 2018. Spatiotemporal response of mountain caribou to the intensity of backcountry skiing. Biological Conservation 217: 149-156.

Lesmerises, F., C.J. Johnson, M-H. St-Laurent. 2016. Refuge or predation risk? Alternate ways to perceive hiker disturbance based on maternal state of female caribou. Ecology and Evolution, 7(3), 845-854.

Lynch, M., J. Conery, and R. Burger. 1995. Mutation accumulation and the extinction of small populations. The American Naturalist, 146(4), 489-518.

McLellan, B. N., R. Serrouya, H.U. Wittmer, and S. Boutin. 2010. Predator‐mediated Allee effects in multi‐prey systems. Ecology, 91(1), 286-292.

McLoughlin, P. D., E. Dzus, B.O.B. Wynes, and S. Boutin. 2003. Declines in populations of woodland caribou. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 64(4), 755-761.

McNay, R.S. 2011. Silviculture options for use in ranges designated for the conservation of northern caribou in British Columbia. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 12:55-73.

McNay, S.R. 2017. Letter to West Moberly First Nation and Saulteau First Nation re. recovery targets for the Quintette caribou herd. 

Mosnier, A., D. Boisjoly, R. Courtois, and J.-P. Ouellet. 2008. Extensive predator space use can limit the efficacy of a control program. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:483–491.

Neufeld, L.M. and J-F Bisaillon, 2017. 2014 to 2016 Jasper National Park Caribou Program Progress Report. Parks Canada Agency, vii, 50.

O'Grady, J. J., Reed, D. H., Brook, B. W., and Frankham, R. (2004). What are the best correlates of predicted extinction risk?. Biological Conservation, 118(4), 513-520.

Paquet, P., S. Alexander, S. Donelon, and C. Callaghan. 2010. Influence of anthropogenically modified snow conditions on wolf predatory behaviour. In The World of Wolves: New Perspectives on Ecology, Behaviour, and Policy. University of Calgary Press, Calgary AB. Eds: Musiani, M., L. Boitani, and P.C. Paquet. pp. 157-173.

Porteous, S. 2013. The Growing Business of the Backcountry. BC Business. March 6, 2013. Online Article. https://www.bcbusiness.ca/the-growing-business-of-the-backcountry

Reimers, E., S. Eftestøl, and J. E. Colman. 2003. Behavior responses of wild reindeer to direct provocation by a snowmobile or skier. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:747-754.

Seip, D. R.. 1992. Factors limiting woodland caribou populations and their interrelationships with wolves and moose in southeastern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 70(8), 1494-1503.

Seip, D. 2015. 2015 Population Census of the Takla Caribou Herd. BC Ministry of Environment. 6 pp.

Seip, D.R. and D.B. Cichowski. 1996. Population ecology of caribou in British Columbia. Rangifer Special Issue No. 9.

Seip, D. R., C. J. Johnson, and G. S. Watts. 2007. Displacement of mountain caribou from winter habitat by snowmobiles. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1539-1544.

Seip, D. and E. Jones. 2013. Population status of caribou herds in the Central Mountain Designatable Unit within British Columbia, 2013. BC Ministry of Environment, Prince George, BC. 30 p.

Seip, D. and E. Jones. 2016. Population status of Central Mountain caribou herds in British Columbia and Response to Recovery Management Actions, 2016. 18 p.

Seip, D. and E. Jones. 2017. Population status of Central Mountain caribou herds in British Columbia and Response to Recovery Management Actions, 2017. 18 p.

Simpson, K. and E. Terry. 2000. Impacts of backcountry recreation activities on mountain caribou: management concerns, interim management guidelines and research needs. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-99, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, British Columbia. 12 pp.

Sittler, K.L. and R.S. McNay. 2017. Conservation of Caribou in the Scott West Herd Area:Year 3 Final Report. Wildlife Infometrics Inc. Report No. 572. Wildlife Infometrics Inc., Mackenzie, British Columbia, Canada. Retrieved from: http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/siwe/details.do?id=5464

Serrouya, R., K. Furk, C. Legebokow. 2014. Census of the Columbia North mountain caribou subpopulation, March 2014. Columbia Mountains Caribou Research Project, Revelstoke, BC.

Serrouya, R., McLellan, B. N., van Oort, H., Mowat, G., and Boutin, S. 2017. Experimental moose reduction lowers wolf density and stops decline of endangered caribou. PeerJ, 5:e3736.

Shaw, G. 2017. Backcountry bottlenecks and traffic jams: B.C. parks grapple with growing popularity of winter activity. Vancouver Sun. January 15, 2017. Online Article.

Steenweg, R. 2011. Interactions of wolves, mountain caribou, and an increased moose-hunting quota—primary-prey management as an approach to caribou recovery. MSc. Thesis.

Thomas, D.C., and D.R. Gray. 2002. Update COSEWIC status report on the woodland caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou in Canada, in COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Woodland Caribou Rangifer tarandus caribou in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 1-98 pp.

Webster, L. 1997. The effects of human related harassment on caribou (Rangifer tarandus). Prepared for the British Columbia Ministry of Environment. van Oort, H. and R. Laubman. 2016. South Monashee Caribou Census 2016. 13 pp.

Whittington, J., M. Hebblewhite, N. DeCesare, L. Neufeld, M. Bradley, J. Wilmshurst, and M. Musiani. 2011. Caribou encounters with wolves increase near roads and trails: a time-to-event approach. Journal of Applied Ecology 48:1535-1542.

Wilson, L., K. Schmidt, and R.S. McNay. 2004. Aerial-based census results for the Takla caribou herd. February 2004. Wildlife Infometrics Inc. Report Number 105. Wildlife Infometrics Inc., Mackenzie, BC.

Wittmer, H.U., A.R. Sinclair, and B.N. McLellan. 2005. The role of predation in the decline and extirpation of woodland caribou. Oecologia, 144(2), 257-267.

Wittmer, H.U., B.N. McLellan, R. Serrouya, and C.D. Apps. 2007. Changes in landscape composition influence the decline of a threatened woodland caribou population. Journal of Animal Ecology 76, 568–579.

Wittmer, H. U., R.N. Ahrens, and B.N. McLellan. 2010. Viability of mountain caribou in British Columbia, Canada: effects of habitat change and population density. Biological Conservation, 143(1), 86-93.