DOCSLIB.ORG

Fort St. James Land and Resource Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Fort St. James Land and Resource Management Plan File: 31090-25-03 March 30, 1999 Dear Reader: Re: Approval and Direction to Implement The Fort St. James Land and Resource Management Plan On behalf of Cabinet, we are pleased to approve the Fort St. James Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) and direct participating ministries to implement the plan. The LRMP is intended to guide ongoing resource management activities including designation of new provincial parks and planning for forest development. The Omineca- Peace Interagency Management Committee is charged with ensuring that the plan is implemented, monitored and reviewed. We would like to thank members of the LRMP table for the considerable dedication and effort that they brought to the table in developing this plan for the management of land and resources in the.Fort St. James LRMP area. The table has demonstrated that diverse interests can work together to develop consensus on future management of land and resources. Their cooperative approach and commitment in negotiation at the community level are exemplary for other Land and Resource Management Planning processes. We encourage table members to continue to participate in plan monitoring. Your ongoing interest and involvement will ensure that the Fort St. James LRMP continues to guide resource management activities and provide sustainable development in the Fort St. James LRMP area. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY ORIGINAL SIGNED BY ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Dan Miller Cathy McGregor Minister of Energy and Minister of Environment, Lands David Zirnhelt Mines and Parks Minister of Forests Executive Summary The Fort St. James Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) officially began on October 21, 1992. The key successes of this plan include: increased certainty for resource development industries while clearly stating what considerations need to be made for other resource values in development planning. the development of an innovative Caribou Strategy which represents agreementses recommended in adjacent planning areas (i.e., the Omineca and Stuart River Protected Areas). a strong commitment to Co-ordinated Access Management Planning for the relatively unaccessed northern half of the planning area. The development of this LRMP is coming at a time when roaded access and forest development occurs just to the south of the midpoint of the district, and when much of this district is still in pristine condition. This plan highlights the resource management opportunities and challenges as forest development moves north towards these largely undeveloped areas, and recommends pro-active integrated resource management, instead of reactive issue management. Setting The Stage — the Fort St. James Plan Area There are 3.174 million hectares in the Fort St. James plan area, currently supplying approximately 3 million cubic metres of timber annually, and generating 131 million dollars in stumpage (1997). An increase in this harvest level is expected in the near future. The plan area supports a population base of approximately 4,000 people. Although the population base is small, the resources in this area support regional and provincial economies in guiding, tourism, mining, the forest industry, agriculture, fisheries, and service sectors. Who Was Involved Participation in this Land and Resource Management Plan has fluctuated, averaging roughly 30-40 participants throughout the seven-year process. The LRMP Table worked with an open-door policy and interest based negotiations, and was not sector-based like many other planning processes. An overall goal of the LRMP is to develop land use plans with the co-operation and participation of First Nations living, working and having traditional territories within the LRMP area. Working Group members identified the need to address issues and concerns of First Nations communities, as they apply to the resources within the planning area. Representatives of several First Nations attended early meetings but other priorities, primarily treaty negotiations, resulted in that participation dropping off as the LRMP process continued. The key issues for local participants were the stability of the community of Fort St. James, and integrated resource management. The key issues for regional participants were integrated resource management strategies that considered management for caribou, the stability of the Prince George Timber Supply Area, tourism and guide outfitting, and opportunities for mineral exploration. What Resulted The Fort St. James Land and Resource Management Plan divides a 3.174 million hectare landbase into 36 Resource Management Zones (RMZ‟s), which fall into five categories: Settlement/Agriculture RMZ — This category represents < 1% of the LRMP landbase, and designates lands within the zone are that are currently used or proposed for farming, and/or are used or proposed for settlement in an Official Community Plan, Crown Land Plan, or LRMP. Management on these lands integrates Crown lands with the historic pattern of settlement and agriculture in the planning area, and management of natural resource values and resource development is compatible with this. Resource Development RMZ — Representing 32% of the landbase, these are lands with existing or future potential for intensive resource development. These are managed with consideration of other resource values and within the guidelines of specific zone objectives and strategies. Management on these lands emphasizes the development of resources such as mineral extraction and timber harvesting, while minimizing impacts on other resources through a variety of integrate resource management strategies. Access is relatively unrestricted, with the exception of any land that may need special management considerations. Multi-Value RMZ — Representing 45% of the landbase, these lands are managed to integrate a wide range of resource values. Access within these zones is relatively unrestricted, with the exception of specific areas that are recommended for special management considerations. Special Management RMZ — Representing 16% of the landbase, these lands are managed for a wide array of resources, but in general indicate the need for more sensitive resource management. Resource development (including roaded access development) may proceed as long as impacts on other resource values are minimized and resource values are maintained. Protected Area RMZ — Representing 6% of the landbase, Protected Areas are established in perpetuity so that the ecological systems they encompass can continue to evolve with a minimum of intervention. The Protected Area System comprises a family of Protected Areas. The system, rather than individual areas, provides for the diversity of ecosystems, special features and outdoor recreation opportunities and experiences sought. In Special Management and Multi-Value Resource Management Zones the RMZ label is complemented by resource management intent statements that clarify and provide sensitive management for identified significant resources. Two areas in this plan have been recommended as special management subzones. These areas are: a corridor of roughly 250 m on either side of the Sustut River, with no resource extraction, to protect the Class 1 Classified Waters of the Sustut River (Lower Sustut Resource Management Zone). the Upper Jake Creek Watershed subzone, with no forest harvesting except for forest health purposes (Squingula Resource Management Zone, subzone A). These two areas represent less than 1% of the landbase (24,649 hectares), and less than 0.1% of the available timber volume in the planning area. Protected Areas The LRMP Table was able to reach consensus on twenty-two Protected Areas, representing 5.9% of the landbase, or roughly 187,000 hectares. The original target for new and existing Protected Areas in this planning area as established by the Land Use Co-ordination Office was 5.8% (plus or minus 0.25%), or roughly 184,000 hectares. Therefore the Fort St. James LRMP is within the target proposed by the Land Use Co- ordination Office. The Protected Areas recommended in this plan include: Stuart River Protected Area (5,575 hectares) — Key values include a small elk population and a migration corridor for sockeye salmon. Mt. Pope Protected Area (1,944 hectares) — Key values include mule deer winter range, Douglas-fir representation, some unique plant and animal species associated with limestone rock formations, and significant recreation values. Fleming Protected Area (41,590 hectares) — Key values include wetland complexes that serve as a stopover for migrating waterfowl and high wildlife values. Mudzenchoot Protected Area (637 hectares) — A dry meadow complex with some unique plant species. Blanchet Protected Area (24,099 hectares) — Key values include significant caribou over-wintering and calving areas, suitable mountain goat habitat, and excellent representation of alpine flora. Nation Protected Area (18,732 hectares) — Key values include the Nation Lakes canoe route and associated visual and recreation values. Omineca Protected Area (6,707 hectares) — The broad U-shaped valley provides significant riparian habitats and recreation values, as well as connectivity with the proposed Protected Area in the Mackenzie planning area. Damdochax Protected Area (8,097 hectares) — Key values include very important wildlife habitat, a wetland riparian complex that provides significant habitat for grizzly bear and moose, and the terminus for a small but significant run of sockeye salmon. Upper Sustut-Thumb Protected Area
Recommended publications
  • Mcleod Lake Indian Band Community Baseline Amendment Report, and 3

    Mcleod Lake Indian Band Community Baseline Amendment Report, and 3

    September 27, 2013 Ms. Courtney Trevis, Panel co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 22nd Floor, 160 Elgin Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Email: [email protected] Mr. Brian Murphy, Panel co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office 4th Floor, 836 Yates Street PO Box 9426 Stn Prov Govt Victoria, BC V8W 9V1 Email: [email protected] By email Dear Ms. Trevis and Mr. Murphy: RE: McLeod Indian Band Community Baseline Profile Report, Community Baseline Amendment Report and EIS Integration Summary Amendment Table Please find attached the following reports. 1. McLeod Indian Band Community Baseline Profile Report 2. McLeod Lake Indian Band Community Baseline Amendment Report, and 3. McLeod Lake Indian Band EIS Integration Summary Amendment Table On September 9, 2013, McLeod Lake Indian Band submitted the “McLeod Lake Indian Band Baseline Profile” (MLIB Community Baseline Profile) for consideration in the Site C Clean Energy Project (the Project) environmental assessment. BC Hydro received the report after it had submitted the Amended EIS to the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency on August 2, 2013. Because the report was received later than anticipated, a placeholder was included in EIS Volume 3 Appendix B Part 5 stating that, “the McLeod Lake Indian Band Community Baseline Report and EIS Integration Summary Table will be submitted at a later date in the environmental assessment
  • The Burning of Kitsegukla, 1872 R.M.GALOIS

    The Burning of Kitsegukla, 1872 R.M.GALOIS

    The Burning of Kitsegukla, 1872 R.M.GALOIS Early in June 1872, Constable Robert Brown of the British Columbia Provincial Police left his post at Port Essington to head up the Skeena River. He intended to travel by canoe to Hazelton, then overland to Babine Lake before returning to the mouth of the Skeena: in all a round trip of nearly 500 miles. As the only representative of provincial authority in this considerable territory, Brown was making his journey "to collect Revenue etc." from the few white residents and transient miners in the area.1 But Brown never completed his trip. At Kitsegukla, a Gitksan village over a hundred miles up the Skeena, his progress was halted by a group of angry natives. Their village had been destroyed by fire a few days earlier, and now they refused Brown passage up the river. This paper is concerned with Brown's encounter at Kitsegukla and its consequences. Reconstruction of these events on the basis of contemporary records is a fairly straightforward task. It offers an account seen, primarily, through the eyes of white participants. But such a unilateral description of a clash involving people of two very different cultures has clear limita­ tions. Native actions are diminished and, as a direct consequence, white actions decontextualized. A more balanced view calls for serious con­ sideration of the Gitksan perception of the "burning of Kitsegukla." This is no simple matter, raising both interpretative and empirical problems. Of the former, one rather obvious, but essential, point needs to be made at this juncture: Gitksan responses to the burning of Kitsegukla were based on the logic of their own cultural universe.
  • Orcadians (And Some Shetlanders) Who Worked West of the Rockies in the Fur Trade up to 1858 (Unedited Biographies in Progress)

    Orcadians (And Some Shetlanders) Who Worked West of the Rockies in the Fur Trade up to 1858 (Unedited Biographies in Progress)

    Orcadians (and some Shetlanders) who worked west of the Rockies in the fur trade up to 1858 (unedited biographies in progress) As compiled by: Bruce M. Watson 208-1948 Beach Avenue Vancouver, B. C. Canada, V6G 1Z2 As of: March, 1998 Information to be shared with Family History Society of Orkney. Corrections, additions, etc., to be returned to Bruce M. Watson. A complete set of biographies to remain in Orkney with Society. George Aitken [variation: Aiken ] (c.1815-?) [sett-Willamette] HBC employee, British: Orcadian Scot, b. c. August 20, 1815 in "Greenay", Birsay, Orkney, North Britain [U.K.] to Alexander (?-?) and Margaret [Johnston] Aiken (?-?), d. (date and place not traced), associated with: Fort Vancouver general charges (l84l-42) blacksmith Fort Stikine (l842-43) blacksmith steamer Beaver (l843-44) blacksmith Fort Vancouver (l844-45) blacksmith Fort Vancouver Depot (l845-49) blacksmith Columbia (l849-50) Columbia (l850-52) freeman Twenty one year old Orcadian blacksmith, George Aiken, signed on with the Hudson's Bay Company February 27, l836 and sailed to York Factory where he spent outfits 1837-40; he then moved to and worked at Norway House in 1840-41 before being assigned to the Columbia District in 1841. Aiken worked quietly and competently in the Columbia district mainly at coastal forts and on the steamer Beaver as a blacksmith until March 1, 1849 at which point he went to California, most certainly to participate in the Gold Rush. He appears to have returned to settle in the Willamette Valley and had an association with the HBC until 1852. Aiken's family life or subsequent activities have not been traced.
  • Bchn 1990 Summer.Pdf

    Bchn 1990 Summer.Pdf

    MEMBER***** ********SOCIETIES Member Societies and their secretaries are responsible for seeing that the correct address for their society is up-to-date. Please send any change to both the Treasurer and the Editor at the addresses inside the back cover. The Annual Return as at October 31st should include telephone numbers for contact. Members dues for the year 1988/89 were paid by the following Members Societies: Alberni District Historical Society, Box 284, Port Alberni, B.C. V9Y 7M7 Atlin Historical Society, PC. Box 111, Atlin, B.C. VOW lAO BCHF - Gulf Island Branch, c/o Marian Worrall, Mayne Island, VON 2JO Burnaby Historical Society, 4521 Watling Street, Burnaby, B.C. V5J 1V7 Chemainus Valley Historical Society, P0. Box 172, Chemainus, B.C. VOR 1KO Cowichan Historical Society, P0. Box 1014, Duncan, B.C. V9L 3Y2 District 69 Historical Society, PC. Box 3014, Parksville, B.C. VOR 2SO East Kootenay Historical Association, P0. Box 74, Cranbrook, B.C. V1C 4H6 Golden & District Historical Society, Box 992, Golden, B.C. VOA 1 HO Kootenay Lake Historical Society, Box 537, Kaslo, B.C. VOG 1 MO Kootenay Museum & Historical Society, 402 Anderson Street, Nelson, B.C. Vi L 3Y3 Ladysmith Historical Society, Box 11, Ladysmith, B.C. VOR 2EO Lantzville Historical Society, Box 501, Lantzville, B.C. VOR 2HO M.S.A. Museum Society, 2313 Ware Street, Abbotsford, B.C. V2S 3C6 Nanaimo Historical Society, P0. Box 933, Station A, Nanaimo, B.C. V9R 5N2 North Shore Historical Society, 623 East 10th Street, North Vancouver, B.C. V7L 2E9 North Shuswap Historical Society, P0.
  • Mountain Goat Ungulate Winter Range Proposal for the Fort St. James Forest District (Report U-7-019)

    Mountain Goat Ungulate Winter Range Proposal for the Fort St. James Forest District (Report U-7-019)

    Mountain Goat Ungulate Winter Range Proposal for the Fort St. James Forest District (Report U-7-019) Prepared By: Joanne Vinnedge, MSc, RPBio1 Darren Fillier RPF, RPBio2 August 2009 1 BC Ministry of Environment, Environmental Stewardship Division, Omineca Region, 2537 Stones Bay Rd., Fort St. James, BC, V0J 1P0. 2 BC Ministry of Environment, Environmental Stewardship Division, Skeena Region, 3726 Alfred Ave., Smithers, BC V0J 2N0 Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ 2 List of Figures .................................................................................................................. 2 List of Tables ................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 3 3.0 Study Area ................................................................................................................ 4 4.0 Mountain Goat Ecology and Habitat Requirements................................................... 5 5.0 Methodology .............................................................................................................. 6 6.0 Results ...................................................................................................................... 7 7.0 Fort St. James Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) ..............................
  • Britain's Magnificent “Forts”

    Britain's Magnificent “Forts”

    Britain’s Magnificent “Forts” The Freedom Freighters of WW 2 By Geoff Walker For our non-seafaring friends, many would associate the word “Fort” with some kind of medieval bastion or land based strong hold, but in the case to hand, nothing could be further from reality. Fort was the name given to a class of Cargo Ship built in Canada during WW2, for the British government (MOWT), under the Lend Lease scheme. All Fort ships, except two which were paid for outright, were transferred on bareboat charter, on Lend - lease terms, from the Canadian Government or the U.S. War Shipping Administration who bought ninety of the 'Forts' built in Canada. The construction of this type of ship commenced in 1942, and by war’s end well over 230 of these vessels had been delivered to the MOWT, (including all “Fort” variants and those built as Tankers) each at an average cost of $1,856,500. Often, confusion persists between “Fort” and “Park” class ships that were built in Canada. To clarify, “Fort” ships were ships transferred to the British Government and the “Park” ships were those employed by the Canadian Government, both types had similar design specifications. All Fort ships were given names prefixed by the word “Fort”, whilst “Park” ships all had names ending or suffixed with “Park” at the time of their launching, although names were frequently changed later during their working life. These ships were built across eighteen different Canadian shipyards. Their triple expansion steam engines were built by seven different manufacturers. There were 3 sub-classes of the type, namely, “North Sands” type which were mainly of riveted construction, and the “Canadian” and “Victory” types, which were of welded construction.
  • Timeline: Cheslatta Carrier Nation and “Southside” Community 5000BC

    Timeline: Cheslatta Carrier Nation and “Southside” Community 5000BC

    Timeline: Cheslatta Carrier Nation and “Southside” Community (Updated to March 3 2021 by Mike Robertson) Please contact me for additions and/or corrections [email protected] 5000BC Archaeological evidence confirms 7000 years of human occupation in the Cheslatta Territory 1763 British Royal Proclamation reserved undefined North American land for Aboriginal people. 1770 est “Grandmother Cheslatta” born 1774 Juan Perez Hernandez claimed the Northwestern coast of North America for Spain. 1791 Spanish explorer Esteban Jose Martinez traded copper sheets to Nootka Sound Chief Maquinna for sawn timber. 1793 Alexander Mackenzie became the first white man to travel through Carrier and Sekani territories while looking for fur-trading areas for the North West Company. 1805-1807 - Simon Fraser established four trading posts in Carrier and Sekani territories: Fort McLeod, Fort George, Fort St. James and Fort Fraser. Until the Hudson Bay Company and North West Company joined together in 1821, Fort St. James was the centre of government and commerce in British Columbia (then called New Caledonia). It claims to be the oldest established white settlement on the B.C. Mainland 1807 February 10th Simon Fraser wrote a letter to express what he witnessed in Stella (Stellaquo). “Almost all Natlians are gone over to Steela.. to grand feast to burn and exhume a couple of chiefs that died of late. When they return from there they will go to the mountains to kill Caribou.” 1828 Chief Kwah captured James Douglas at Ft. St. James, whom he held until his release was negotiated. The incident lead to conflict among different Carrier Nations. Douglas went on to become the first governor of the united colony of British Columbia.
  • Summer Recreational Access Management Plan for the Bulkley LRMP

    Summer Recreational Access Management Plan for the Bulkley LRMP

    Summer Recreational Access Management Plan For the Bulkley LRMP Prepared by Summer RAMP Table Submitted to Bulkley Valley Community Resources Board February 2013 Facilitator Tom Chamberlin Funding provided by Project supported by Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... 1 List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. 3 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 4 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 5 2.0 History ........................................................................................................................ 5 3.0 Objectives .................................................................................................................... 6 4.0 The Process and the Participants ..................................................................................... 6 4.1 Participants and their Goals ............................................................................................ 6 4.1.1 Bulkley Valley Quad Riders Club ................................................................................... 7 4.1.2 Bulkley
  • Download Download

    Download Download

    The Ethno-Genesis of the Mixed-Ancestry Population in New Caledonia Duane Thomson n British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada the question of which mixed-ancestry persons qualify for Métis status is a largely unresolved public policy issue. Whether this issue is eventually Idecided by legal decisions or by political accommodation, the historical background relating to British Columbia’s mixed-ancestry population is an important element in the discussion and requires detailed exploration. Historical research conducted for the Department of Justice forms the basis of this study of the ethno-genesis of the mixed-ancestry population of central British Columbia.1 To understand the parameters of this research, some background regarding the 2003 R. v. Powley decision in the Supreme Court of Canada is necessary. The Court ruled that Steve and Roddy Powley, two mixed-ancestry men from Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, qualified for Métis status. They thus enjoyed a constitutionally protected right to hunt for food under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.2 In its decision, the Court also set out the criteria that succeeding mixed-ancestry applicants must meet to similarly qualify for Métis status. One important criterion was that Métis Aboriginal rights rest in the existence of a historic, self- 1 For a summary of some of these legal and political issues, see Jean Barman and Mike Evans, “Reflections on Being, and Becoming, Métis in British Columbia,” BC Studies 161 (Spring 2009): 59-91. New Caledonia is the region chosen by Barman and Evans in their attempt to show that a Métis community developed in British Columbia.
  • Of the Babine River I I an Historical Perspective

    Of the Babine River I I an Historical Perspective

    I I Scientific Excellence • Resource Protection & Conservation • Benefits for Canadians Excellence scientifique • Protection et conservation des ressources • Bénéfices aux Canadiens I a _° IIIII 'ïWiiuWï r". 12020078 I ÎN Al 11 D NON-NATIVE USE OF THE BABINE RIVER I I AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 1 by Brendan O'Donnell 1 Native Affairs Division Issue 2 1 Policy and Program Planning I I I I I 1#1 Fisheries Pêches and Oceans et Océans Canad1a I INTRODUCTION The following is one of a series of reports on the historicai uses of waterways in New Brunswick and British Columbia. These reports are narrative outlines of how Indian and non-native populations have used these .rivers, with emphasis on navigability, tidal influence, riparian interests, settlement patterns, commercial use and fishing rights. These historical reports were requested by the Interdepartmental Reserve Boundary Review Committee, a body comprising representatives from Indian Affairs and Northern Development [DIAND], Justice, Energy, Mines and Resources [EMR], and chaired by Fisheries and Oceans. The committee is tasked with establishing a government position on reserve boundaries that can assist in determining the area of application of Indian Band fishing by-laws. Although each report in this series is as different as the waterway it describes, there is a common structural approach to each paper. Each report describes the establishment of Indian eserves along the river; what Licences of Occupation were issued; what instructions were given to surveyors laying out these reserves; how each surveyor laid out each reserve based on his field notes and survey plan; what, if any, fishing rights were considered for the Indian Bands; and how the Indian and non-native populations have used the waterway over the past centuries for both commercial and recreational use.
  • Preliminary Metallogenic Map of North America: a Numerical Listing of Deposits

    Preliminary Metallogenic Map of North America: a Numerical Listing of Deposits

    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 858-A Preliminary Metallogenic Map of North America: A Numerical Listing of Deposits Preliminary Metallogenic Map of North America: A Numerical Listing of Deposits By Philip W. Guild GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 858-A 1981 United States Department of the Interior JAMES G. WATT, Secretary Geological Survey Dallas L. Peck, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 81-600156 Free on application to Distribution Branch, Text Products Section, U. S. Geological Survey, 604 South Pickett Street, Alexandria, VA 22304 CONTENTS Page Page Abstract_----------------------------------------------------- A1 Numerical listing of deposits-Continued Introduction__________________________________________________ 1 Mexico-Continued The map------------------------------------------------------ 2 San Luis Potos1 ------------------------------------ A55 Base map------------------------------------------------ 2 Sinaloa______________________________________________ 55 Geologic/structural background----------------------- 2 Sonora---------------------------------------------- 56 Mineral deposits---------------------------------------- 3 Tamaulipas_________________________________________ 58 Spot symbols--------------------------------------- 3 Vera Cruz ------------------------------------------ 58 Districts -------------------------------------------- 6 Zacatecas ------------------------------------------- 58 Mineralogic nature -------------------------------- 6 Nicaragua ----------------------------------------------- 59 Identification
  • COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Caribou Rangifer

    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Caribou Rangifer

    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Caribou Rangifer tarandus Northern Mountain population Central Mountain population Southern Mountain population in Canada Northern Mountain population - SPECIAL CONCERN Central Mountain population - ENDANGERED Southern Mountain population - ENDANGERED 2014 COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: 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. xxii + 113 pp. (www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm). Previous report(s): COSEWIC. 2002. 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. xi + 98 pp. (Species at Risk Status Reports) 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. 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. Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge Deborah Cichowski for writing the status report on Caribou Rangifer tarandus, Northern Mountain population, Central Mountain population and Southern Mountain population in Canada, prepared under contract with Environment Canada. This status report was overseen and edited by Justina Ray, Co-chair of the COSEWIC Terrestrial Mammals Specialist Subcommittee.