Local Government-Initiated Rezoning and Development Moratoria

(A49185)

Murray & Anne Fraser Building PO Box 1700 STN CSC Victoria, BC V8W 2Y2 Phone: 250.721.8188 Email: [email protected] Web: www.elc.uvic.ca

November 14, 2012

Electronic Filing

Secretary of the Joint Review Panel Enbridge Northern Gateway Project 444 – 7th Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 0X8

Dear Sir/Madam:

Re: Enbridge Northern Gateway Project Joint Review Panel Hearing Order OH-4-2011 and File No. OF-Fac-Oil-N304-2010-01 01 Notice of Motion Seeking Leave to File Late Evidence

Please find enclosed for filing by BC Nature/Nature Canada a Motion dated November 14th, 2012 and two attachments: 1) Seip, D. R. & Jones, E. S. (2012). Population Status of Caribou Herds in the Central Mountain Designatable Unit within British Columbia, 2012. Recovery Initiatives for Caribou of British Columbia; and 2) A Review of Seip & Jones (2012) and its Implications for the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project by Brian Churchill, who is an expert witness for BC Nature/Nature Canada.

Yours truly,

Chris Tollefson Barrister & Solicitor Executive Director, Environmental Law Centre Counsel for BC Nature/Nature Canada cc Ian Davidson, Executive Director, Nature Canada Rosemary Fox, Conservation Chair, BC Nature John Neville, President, BC Nature

(A49185)

Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Joint Review Panel NEB File No. OF-Fac-Oil-N304-2010-01-01 Hearing Order OH-4-2011

NOTICE OF MOTION OF BC NATURE/NATURE CANADA SEEKING LEAVE TO FILE LATE EVIDENCE

November 14, 2012

Name of Group Bringing Forward the Motion:

BC Nature/Nature Canada

Decision or Order Requested:

BC Nature/Nature Canada requests from the Joint Review Panel (“Panel”) leave to file additional late evidence, that evidence being: 1) Seip, D. R. & Jones, E. S. (2012). Population Status of Caribou Herds in the Central Mountain Designatable Unit within British Columbia, 2012; and 2) A report prepared by Mr. Brian Churchill that reviews Seip & Jones (2012), attached to which is a map depicting the pipeline right of way (RoW) in relation to the caribou habitat locations mapped in Seip & Jones (2012). This map was prepared jointly by Mr. Churchill and the co-author of Seip & Jones (2012), Ms. Elena Jones.

Statement of Facts

In the Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment (ESA), the Proponent cites Seip & Jones (2008) as a primary source of information on the population statuses of five herds of woodland caribou affected by the pipeline project (Vol. 6A P2, Exhibit Number B3-7, Table 9-38). It also cites and relies on for the same purpose “Jones, E. S. (2008). Seasonal habitat use and selection by woodland caribou herds in the South Peace region, central British Columbia.” [herein cited as Jones (2008)]. Jones (2008) was authored by Ms. Elena S. Jones for the BC Ministry of Environment and contains data that the Proponent has incorporated into maps of Caribou range and habitat that is has filed in this proceeding as Exhibits B59-3, B59-4, and B59-5 (Hearing Transcript Vol. 101, Mon., Nov. 5, lines 25239 – 25242).

In October 2012, Seip and Jones published an update to their 2008 study. In their 2012 study Seip & Jones provide current data on population status for six caribou herds: Kennedy Siding, Moberly, Burnt-Pine, Scott, Quintette, and Bearhole-Redwillow. The Bearhole-Redwillow herd (a migratory BC-based herd sometimes considered to form part of the larger Narraway herd) is not mentioned or discussed in the Jones (2008) study that the Proponent relied upon in the ESA.

Seip & Jones (2012) conclude on the basis of newly collected telemetry data that the Quintette herd remains stable but that the Bearhole-Redwillow herd is decreasing. The pipeline right of way (RoW) would bisect the range of the Bearhole-Redwillow herd. The situation of the

Page 1 of 5

(A49185)

Bearhole-Redwillow herd is dire. According to Seip & Jones (2012), it has been declining by an average rate of 28% per year for the past four years.

A key component of Seip & Jones (2012) is a full-colour, high-resolution map that identifies, based on recent telemetry research, winter and summer habitat locations for the Kennedy Siding, Moberly, Burnt-Pine, Quintette, and Bearhole-Redwillow herds. This study was undertaken by the Recovery Initiative for Caribou of Central British Columbia (“RICCBC”) (http://www.centralbccaribou.ca/crg), a program sponsored by an independent research organization known as Resources North. This RICCBC program is funded by a variety of public and private donors including Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline and the former BC Ministry of Forests and Range (source: Resources North. 2009-2010 Annual Report. Accessed online: http://www.resourcesnorth.org/downloads/2009-10_Annual_Report_FINAL.pdf). By contributing funding to this program, Enbridge obtained the right of access to the RICCBC database.

Brian Churchill, who is an expert witness for BC Nature/Nature Canada, has had extensive fieldwork and management experience in relation to the caribou herds in question. He has been a caribou biologist for the past 34 years. He is currently the President of the BC College of Applied Biology. He has known and worked with Mr. Dale Seip (Wildlife Habitat Ecologist, BC Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations) for 30 years. He is closely familiar with the census series that Seip and Jones have been publishing on Mountain caribou in BC since 2007.

In late October, Mr. Churchill recently obtained a copy of Seip & Jones (2012). He has raised concerns with counsel herein about the need to inform the Panel of the impact of this newly available information so its deliberations are based on the best available and most current data. He also contacted the authors of that study. On November 14, 2012, he obtained from Ms. Jones a map of the proposed pipeline superimposed over the habitat location map shown in Figure 2 of Seip & Jones (2012).

Brian Churchill is available to speak to this Motion and his report in person while these proceedings continue in Prince George.

Both Seip & Jones, (2012) and Brian Churchill’s report have been attached as appendices to this Notice of Motion. An affidavit from Ms. Jones deposing to the steps she took to prepare, with Mr. Churchill’s assistance, the map with the pipeline superimposed over Figure 2 is being obtained and will filed shortly.

Grounds for Request

This Motion is brought before the Panel pursuant to section 35 of the National Energy Board Rules of Practice and Procedure, 1995, SOR/95-208, under the following grounds: 1) Section 4 of Hearing Order OH-4-2011 for the Northern Gateway Pipelines Inc. Enbridge Northern Gateway Project (“Hearing Order”); and

Page 2 of 5

(A49185)

2) Amended Agreement Between the National Energy Board and the Minister of the Environment Concerning the Joint Review of the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project – Appendix Terms of Reference (“Terms of Reference”).

Section 4 of the Hearing Order allows the Panel to approve the submission of late evidence based on the consideration of six factors: 1) how the proposed Project will impact the participant; 2) the reason why the deadline was not met; 3) whether the submission is likely to assist the Panel; 4) whether similar submissions have been, or could be, made by others; 5) how other parties could be disadvantaged as a result of the late submission; and 6) any other relevant considerations.

How the proposed Project will impact the participant

BC Nature is a province-wide federation of naturalists and naturalists’ clubs. Its interest is the maintenance of the integrity of British Columbia’s wide range of ecosystems and rich biodiversity, and in related public education. Nature Canada is the national voice of naturalists in Canada. Its mission is to protect and conserve wildlife and habitats in Canada by engaging people and advocating on behalf of nature.

BC Nature and Nature Canada are concerned that the Northern Gateway Pipeline project will exacerbate the current decline in the Little Smokey, Narraway, Hart Ranges, and Telkwa caribou herds through cumulative effects and increased mortality.

Reason why the deadline was not met

According to section 8.5 of Order AO-001-OH-4-2011 (Amending Hearing Order OH-4-2011), the deadline for Intervenors and Government Participants to submit to the Panel any written evidence was January 4th, 2012. However, the Seip & Jones (2012) study was only published in October 2012, and therefore that study, along with Brian Churchill’s analysis of that study, could not have been filed as evidence before the deadline.

Whether the submission is likely to assist the Panel

Part II of the Terms of Reference states that the Panel will consider: The environmental effects of the project, including the environmental effects of malfunctions or accidents that may occur in connection with the project and any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out; [and] The significance of the effects referred to above.

While the Proponent relied on Seip & Jones (2008) and Jones (2008) in their ESA, the data in that study are now out of date. The data in Seip & Jones (2012) will provide the Panel with the newest and most reliable scientific evidence. This evidence is necessary for the Panel to properly consider the environmental effects of the pipeline project.

Page 3 of 5

(A49185)

Further, the data in Seip & Jones (2012) address an important gap in the body of evidence submitted by the Proponent. On February 1st, 2012, the Proponent submitted a set of maps entitled “Caribou Herd Range and Habitat, Ungulate Winter Range and Wildlife Habitat Areas” (Exhibit Number B59-3, B59-4, B59-5) in response to Environment Canada’s Information Request No. 2.63.

These maps do not show the core summer and winter habitats for the Little Smoky, Narraway, Hart Ranges, and Telkwa herds. However, the Proponent, relying on the raw data that formed the basis for Jones (2008), does display in these maps the core summer and winter habitats for the Quintette herd (Hearing Transcript Vol. 101, Mon., Nov. 5, line 25189). The Proponent’s maps clearly show that the pipeline RoW bisects the range of the Narraway herd. However, the maps do not indicate what parts of that range represent winter habitat and what parts represent summer habitat, but only indicate “undefined caribou habitat” (Hearing Transcript Vol. 101, Mon., Nov. 5, line 25156). The part of the Narraway herd most affected by the pipeline RoW is the Bearhole-Redwillow population (Seip & Jones 2012, Figure 2). Seip & Jones (2012) is significant because it identifies the summer and winter telemetry locations for the declining Bearhole-Redwillow/Narraway herd.

The Proponent acknowledges that “The Hart Ranges, Telkwa and Narraway herds migrate annually between winter and summer ranges” (Vol. 6A P2, Exhibit Number B3-7, p. 9-206). The Proponent also has conceded in cross examination that caribou in the Narraway and Hart Ranges herds may need to cross the pipeline corridor as part of their seasonal migrations (Hearing Transcript Vol. 101, Mon., Nov. 5, lines 25347, 25368 – 25369).

The Proponent further stated that: [I]t’s important... to understand where caribou spend summer and winter and what important habitats are associated with those seasons. It’s also important to... understand caribou movements across the landscape and at what times of the year they may be at greater risk – mortality risk – than at other times. (Hearing Transcript Vo. 101, Mon. Nov. 5, line 25719).

Finally, the Proponent also acknowledged that summer time is a key season that presents high mortality risk for females and young calves (Hearing Transcript Vo. 101, Mon. Nov. 5, line 25721).

Knowing the winter and summer habitat locations for these herds is therefore critical to determining the effect of the pipeline RoW on woodland caribou. In our submission, the data provided by Seip & Jones (2012) is essential to the Panel in making that determination.

Whether similar submissions have been, or could be, made by others

To the best of our knowledge, no other party has submitted a motion to file the Seip & Jones (2012) study in evidence, nor has any other party analyzed the impact of the pipeline on caribou populations with the benefit of this significant new piece of scientific research.

Page 4 of 5

(A49185)

We have advised Mr. Christopher Jones, counsel for the Province of British Columbia, of our intention to file this motion. Mr. Jones has responded as follow: As [Seip & Jones (2012)] is a public document, the Province takes no issue with your client seeking to make use of it in the current Joint Review Panel proceeding. However, the Province does not intend to make available a witness to speak to the report: (personal communication, November 14, 2012).

How other parties could be disadvantaged as a result of the late submission

The Proponent has acknowledged that it has used research data from Jones (2008) and has relied upon Seip & Jones (2008) in preparing its ESA (Hearing Transcript Vo. 101, Mon. Nov. 5, lines 25189, 25240, 25242; Exhibit B3-7, p. 9-104). In particular, it has incorporated data from Jones (2008) into the caribou habitat maps that the Proponent has supplied to this hearing in response to a request from Environment Canada (Hearing Transcript Vo. 101, Mon. Nov. 5, lines 25189). Further, the Proponent has acknowledged that it was a research partner of Resources North, which is a sponsor of the continuing research that Dr. Seip and Ms. Jones have now published as Seip & Jones (2012) (Hearing Transcript Vo. 101, Mon. Nov. 5, lines 25193 – 25194). In the circumstances, we submit that the Proponent has had the opportunity of make itself aware of the research data we are proposing to tender, and is in no way disadvantaged by its late admission into evidence.

Respectfully submitted on November 14, 2012,

______Chris Tollefson Counsel for BC Nature/Nature Canada

Barrister & Solicitor Executive Director Environmental Law Centre University of Victoria Murray & Anne Fraser Building PO Box 2400 STN CSC Victoria, BC V8W 3H7 Phone: 250.721.8188 Email: [email protected]

Page 5 of 5

6 (A49185) Herds , 2012 2012 of Caribouof tatus October S British Columbia British Dale SeipDale and Elena Jones within Central Mountain Designatable Unit Designatable Mountain Central Population the in (A49185) i

Table of Contents

List of Tables...... ii

List of Figures ...... iii

Introduction ...... 1

Quintette...... 2

Bearhole-Redwillow ...... 2

Moberly...... 3

Burnt-Pine ...... 4

Kennedy Siding...... 4

Summary ...... 5

References ...... 26 (A49185) ii

List of Tables

Table 1. Quintette calf recruitment survey, March 2012...... 13

Table 2. Calf recruitment and adult mortality for Quintette caribou, March 2003 to March 2012 ...... 14

Table 3. Bearhole-Redwillow calf recruitment survey, March 2012...... 15

Table 4. Calf recruitment and adult mortality for Bearhole-Redwillow caribou, March 2007 to March 2012...... 16

Table 5. Population estimate of the Bearhole-Redwillow herd using model predictions based on the observed distribution of collared caribou among groups ...... 17

Table 6. Moberly population census and calf recruitment survey, March 2012 ...... 18

Table 7. Calf recruitment and adult mortality for Moberly caribou, March 2003 to March 2012 ...... 19

Table 8. Burnt-Pine population census and calf recruitment survey, March 2012 ...... 20

Table 9. Calf recruitment and adult mortality for Burnt-Pine caribou, March 2003 to March 2012 ...... 21

Table 10. Kennedy Siding population census and calf recruitment survey, March 2012...... 22

Table 11. Calf recruitment and adult mortality for Kennedy Siding caribou, March 2003 to March 2012...... 23

Table 12. Summary of population parameters for caribou herds in the Central Mountain Designatable Unit of British Columbia...... 24

Table 13. Causes of adult mortality for caribou herds in the Central Mountain Designatable Unit of British Columbia...... 25 (A49185) iii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Caribou Designatable Units (DUs) in Canada...... 6

Figure 2. Radio-telemetry and GPS-collar locations of caribou herds in the B.C. portion of the Central Mountain DU, May 2002 to July 2012 ...... 7

Figure 3. Quintette calf recruitment survey, March 2012 ...... 8

Figure 4. Bearhole-Redwillow calf recruitment survey, March 2012...... 9

Figure 5. Moberly population census and calf recruitment survey, March 2012...... 10

Figure 6. Burnt-Pine population census and calf recruitment survey, March 2012...... 11

Figure 7. Kennedy Siding population census and calf recruitment survey, March 2012 ...... 12 (A49185) 1

Introduction

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) recently adopted a new system for evaluating the status and designation of caribou populations in Canada. Caribou herds living on the east side of the Rocky Mountains, south of the Peace arm in B.C. and extending south into Alberta to Banff National Park constitute the Central Mountains Designatable Unit (DU), (Figure 1). In the future, the status of caribou within this area will be evaluated and designated separately from other caribou populations in Canada.

Several caribou herds occur exclusively within the B.C. portion of the Central Mountains DU (Figure 2) including:

i) Moberly ii) Scott iii) Burnt-Pine iv) Kennedy Siding v) Quintette vi) Bearhole-Redwillow portion of the Narraway herd.

The remainder of the Narraway herd is shared by B.C. and Alberta and data on population status are provided in the Alberta Woodland Caribou Status Report (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association 2010). The Alberta status report also provides information on the four other caribou herds in the Central Mountains DU that live primarily in Alberta (Redrock/Prairie Creek, A La Peche, Jasper, and Banff herds).

This report updates the 2011 status report entitled “Population Status of Threatened Caribou Herds in the Central Rockies Ecoregion of British Columbia, 2011 (Seip and Jones 2011).

Updated information includes a 2012 population census for the Moberly, Burnt-Pine and Kennedy Siding herds as well as updated information on calf recruitment and adult survival rate for Moberly, Burnt-Pine, Kennedy Siding, Quintette and Bearhole-Redwillow. We also provide a new population estimate for the Bearhole-Redwillow herd. There is no recent information for the Scott herd.

Calf recruitment surveys were conducted on an annual basis beginning in March 2003 for the Quintette, Moberly, Burnt-Pine and Kennedy Siding herds, and March 2007 for the Bearhole- Redwillow herd. Calf recruitment surveys consisted of locating radio-collared individuals from a helicopter and counting the number of adults and calves in each group. Additional incidental sightings of caribou groups were also included.

Adult mortality was determined annually (01 April to 31 March) for radio-collared caribou during these same years. Adult mortality was calculated by dividing the number of caribou that died by the number of caribou that were monitored for the entire year (±30 days to accommodate irregularities in capture and drop-off schedules). We attempted to determine the cause of death for caribou when the collars were recovered, but because telemetry flights occurred only monthly 6 (A49185) 2 for much of the study period, evidence of cause of death at mortality sites was often minimal and inconclusive.

A population census was conducted for the Moberly, Burnt-Pine and Kennedy Siding herds in March 2012. Each population census was conducted by aerially searching (from a Bell 206 helicopter) for caribou tracks and caribou in the subalpine and alpine zones of the core winter range of each herd. Core winter range was previously determined and defined as areas that were most likely to be selected by caribou in winter based on radio-telemetry and caribou habitat modelling (Jones et al. 2007, Jones 2008). When a group of caribou was located, we counted the number of adults and calves, and then used radio-telemetry to determine if any collared caribou were present within the group.

In 2012, all collared caribou were located visually (without the use of radio-telemetry) during the population census so there was no need to correct the counts for sightability.

Quintette

In winter, Quintette caribou live primarily on windswept alpine ridges in the eastern foothills of the Rocky Mountains, southwest of the town of Tumbler Ridge (Figure 3). The most recent population estimate (conducted in 2008) was between 173-218 caribou in the Quintette herd (Seip & Jones 2011).

A calf recruitment survey was conducted for the Quintette herd in 2012 by locating seven radio-collared caribou by telemetry and counting the caribou associated with them (Figure 3). A total of 83 caribou (77 adults, 6 calves) were counted in the Quintette area during the calf recruitment survey (Table 1). On average (2003 to 2012), calves comprised 14.8% of the Quintette population (Table 2). The calf recruitment rate in 2012 was considerably lower than calf recruitment in the nine years previous.

Over the past ten years, eight collared caribou died during 86 caribou years of monitoring, for an annual adult mortality rate of 9.3%. The calf recruitment rate, in combination with the adult mortality rate suggests that the Quintette caribou population has been stable or slowly increasing over the past decade.

Bearhole-Redwillow

The Bearhole-Redwillow caribou winter in low-elevation boreal forests, east of the town of Tumbler Ridge, near Bearhole Lake and the Redwillow River (Figure 4).

A calf recruitment survey was conducted for the Bearhole-Redwillow herd in 2012 by locating five radio-collared caribou and associated caribou by telemetry (Figure 4). A total of 22 caribou, including three calves were counted (Table 3) for a calf recruitment rate of 13.6%. Over the past six years, the calf recruitment rate has averaged 9.5% (Table 4). (A49185) 3

Over the past six years, six collared caribou died during 27 caribou-years of monitoring for an annual adult mortality rate of 22.2%. The high adult mortality rate in combination with the relatively low calf recruitment rate for Bearhole-Redwillow caribou indicate that this herd is declining (Table 4).

Bearhole-Redwillow caribou live in forested habitat during the winter making them very difficult to locate during aerial surveys. Consequently, the population counts for this herd have been limited to counting caribou associated with radio-collared caribou in the area. The largest minimum population count was 49 caribou recorded in 2008 (Table 4).

A rough assessment of population size and trend was conducted using a model that predicts the most likely number of groups in a population based on the observed distribution of collars among groups. Number of groups and collar distribution within each group were collected during calf recruitment surveys. Population estimates using this method indicate that the Bearhole-Redwillow population decreased from 80 caribou in 2008 to 21 in 2012 (Table 5), although the minimum count for 2012 indicates that there were at least 22 caribou in the herd (Table 4). A decline from 80 to 21 animals over four years equates to a lambda of 0.72.

Moberly

The Moberly caribou live in the subalpine and alpine regions north of the Pine River and south of Eleven Mile and Gething Creeks (Figure 5).

The population census for the Moberly herd was conducted on March 28, 2012. The census area encompassed alpine and subalpine areas within the core winter range of the Moberly herd (Figure 5). Good snow conditions and direct sunlight made caribou tracks and cratering highly visible. No caribou sign (old or recent) was observed, however, along the flight path until Mount McAllister. There were three radio-collared caribou in the census area at the time of the census. All three caribou were spotted within a single group of 25 caribou on Mount McAllister (Table 6). Given 100% sightability of the collared caribou, the 2012 population estimate for the Moberly herd is 25 animals. The group of 25 caribou included three calves for a calf recruitment rate of 12.0%.

On average (2003 to 2012), calves comprised 14.5% of the Moberly population (Table 7). Over the past ten years, 11 collared caribou have died during 43 caribou years of monitoring, for an annual adult mortality rate of 25.6%. The high mortality rate, in combination with the calf recruitment rate, is indicative of a caribou population that is declining (Bergerud 1988, Seip & Cichowski 1996).

Previous population estimates support the predicted decline of the Moberly herd. In 1997, 191 caribou were counted in the Moberly area (TERA 1997). By 2011, the population estimate had decreased to 35 animals. The current estimate is 25 caribou. (A49185) 4

Burnt-Pine

The Burnt-Pine herd was censused on March 16, 2012. The census area included the subalpine and alpine areas of Mt. Le Hudette, Mt. Stephenson, and Howling Wolf Peak (Figure 6). There was one radio-collared caribou in the census area at the time of the census. The caribou was by itself with no calf, and located without using telemetry (Table 8). Given 100% sightability of the collared caribou, the population estimate for the Burnt-Pine herd is one animal.

In 2006, there were at least 17 caribou in the Burnt Pine herd (Table 9). In 2010, the minimum count of caribou in the Burnt Pine herd was assumed to be six animals (19 caribou were located in the Burnt-Pine area, however, 13 of those were in a group with a radio-collared caribou from the Kennedy Siding herd which returned to Kennedy Siding soon after) (Table 9). The population census estimate for the Burnt-Pine herd in 2011 was five caribou.

On average (2003 to 2012), calves comprised 8.6% of the Burnt-Pine population (Table 9). Over the past ten years, two collared caribou have died during 14 caribou years of monitoring, for an annual adult mortality rate of 14.3%. The mortality rate, in combination with the low calf recruitment rate, is indicative of a caribou population that is declining (Bergerud 1988, Seip & Cichowski 1996). Calf recruitment surveys indicate that there has been no calf recruitment into this population for the last four years (Table 9).

Kennedy Siding

Kennedy Siding caribou spend early winter in low-elevation pine forests and migrate northeast to subalpine and alpine areas between the Parsnip and Burnt Rivers in late winter (Figure 7). The Kennedy Siding herd was censused on March 14, 2012. The census area included alpine and subalpine areas in the Missinchinka River, Colbourne Creek and Reynolds Creek watersheds (Figure 7).

Fresh snowfall and direct sunlight made caribou tracks and cratering highly visible. All radio-collared caribou in the Kennedy Siding herd (n = 8) were spotted without the use of telemetry. A total of 41 caribou (35 adults, 6 calves) were counted in the Kennedy Siding area (Table 10). Given 100% sightability of the collared caribou, the 2012 population estimate for the Kennedy Siding herd is 41 animals. Calf recruitment was 14.6%.

On average (2003 to 2012), calves comprised 13.0% of the Kennedy Siding population (Table 11). Over the past nine years, 14 collared caribou have died during 92 caribou years of monitoring, for an annual adult mortality rate of 15.2%. The mortality rate, in combination with the calf recruitment rate, is indicative of a caribou population that is declining (Bergerud 1988, Seip & Cichowski 1996).

Previous population estimates support the predicted decline of the Kennedy Siding Herd. In 2002, the population estimate was 99-119 caribou (Seip, 2002). There were at least 120 caribou in the population in 2007 (Table 11). By 2011, the population estimate had decreased to between 44-57 animals (Seip & Jones, 2011). (A49185) 5

Summary

Population parameters are summarized in Table 12. With the exception of the Quintette herd, calf recruitment and adult mortality rates indicate that all caribou herds are declining. This conclusion is supported by population census data for the Moberly, Burnt-Pine and Kennedy Siding which shows dramatic declines for these herds over the past ten years. The Narraway herd is also declining (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association 2010).

Wolf predation is the suspected cause of death for 39% of the 41 adult mortalities (Table 13). The rate of wolf predation, however, is likely higher as some portion of the unknown predator and unknown cause categories are also likely due to wolf predation. 6 (A49185) . Caribou Designatable Units (DUs) in Canada (DUs) Units Caribou Designatable Figure 1. Figure (A49185) 7

Figure 2. Radio-telemetry and GPS-collar locations of caribou herds in the B.C. portion of the Central Mountain DU, as well as locations of the adjacent Hart Ranges caribou which belong to the Southern Mountain DU, May 2002 to July 2012. Hart Ranges, Narraway and Scott herds 6 were not included in the population demographic surveys for this report. (A49185) 8

Figure 3. Quintette calf recruitment survey, March 2012. Details for each numbered caribou location are in Table 1. (A49185) 9

Figure 4. Bearhole-Redwillow calf recruitment survey, March 2012. Details for each numbered caribou location are in Table 3. (A49185) 10

Figure 5. Moberly population census and calf recruitment survey, March 2012. Details for each numbered caribou location are in Table 5. (A49185) 11

Figure 6. Burnt-Pine population census and calf recruitment survey, March 2012. Details for each numbered caribou location are in Table 8. (A49185) 12

Figure 7. Kennedy Siding population census and calf recruitment survey, March 2012. Details for each numbered caribou location are in Table 10. (A49185) 13

Table 1. Quintette calf recruitment survey, March 2012.

Number of Location Total Collared Number of Number of Number Number of Caribou in Adults Calves (Figure 3) Caribou Group

1 0 4 0 4 2 2 9 1 10 3 1 10 0 10 4 0 8 0 8 5 1 7 0 7 6 0 9 2 11 7 1 7 0 7 8 1 10 1 11 9 1 13 2 15 Total 7 77 6 83 (A49185) 14

Table 2. Calf recruitment and adult mortality for Quintette caribou, March 2003 to March 2012. Caribou were only included in adult mortality calculations if monitored for an entire year (±30 days to accommodate irregularities in capture and drop-off schedules).

Calf Recruitment Adult Mortality

No. No. No. No. Percent Percent Year Total Collared Mortalitie Calves Adults Calves Mortality Caribou s

2003 13 45 58 22 2 1 50 2004 16 81 97 16 3 0 0 2005 8 55 63 13 8 0 0 2006 13 83 96 14 9 0 0 2007 13 92 105 12 8 0 0 2008 26 147 173 15 17 2 12 2009 9 66 75 12 8 2 25 2010 17 63 80 21 10 1 10 2011 17 88 105 16 10 1 10 2012 6 77 83 7 11 1 9 Total 138 797 935 86 8 Average 14.8 9.3 (A49185) 15

Table 3. Bearhole-Redwillow calf recruitment survey, March 2012.

Number of Location Total Collared Number of Number of Number Number of Caribou in Adults Calves (Figure 4) Caribou Group

1 2 7 2 9 2 2 3 0 3 3 1 9 1 10 Total 5 19 3 22 (A49185) 16

Table 4. Calf recruitment and adult mortality for Bearhole-Redwillow caribou, March 2007 to March 2012. Caribou were only included in adult mortality calculations if monitored for an entire year (±30 days to accommodate irregularities in capture and drop-off schedules).

Calf Recruitment Adult Mortality

No. No. No. Percent No. Percent Year Total Collared Calves Adults Calves Mortalities Mortality Caribou

2007 1 12 13 8 0 2008 3 46 49 6 5 2 40 2009 6 1 17 2010 1 33 34 3 3 2 67 2011 6 22 28 21 6 0 0 2012 3 19 22 13 7 1 14 Total 14 132 146 27 6 Average 9.5 22.2 (A49185) 17

Table 5. Population estimate of the Bearhole-Redwillow herd using model predictions based on the observed distribution of collared caribou among groups.

No. No. No. No. Mean Groups in Groups Groups Groups Population Year Group Herd with 1 with 2 with 3 Estimate Size (Model collar collars collars Prediction)

2008 4 0 1 10 8 80

2011 3 1 0 7 8 56

2012 1 2 0 7 3 21 (A49185) 18

Table 6. Moberly population census and calf recruitment survey, March 2012. Location type was defined as “visual” if caribou were located without using telemetry, and “telemetry” if caribou were located using telemetry.

Number Total Location of Number Number Number Number Collared Location Type of of Calves of (Figure 5) Caribou Adults Caribou in Group 1 3 Visual 22 3 25 Total 3 22 3 25 (A49185) 19

Table 7. Calf recruitment and adult mortality for Moberly caribou, March 2003 to March 2012. Caribou were only included in adult mortality calculations if monitored for an entire year (±30 days to accommodate irregularities in capture and drop-off schedules).

Calf Recruitment Adult Mortality

No. No. No. No. Percent Collare Percent Year Total Mortalitie Calves Adults Calves d Mortality s Caribou 2003 4 25 29 14 2 0 0 2004 3 16 19 16 6 0 0 2005 10 31 41 24 6 0 0 2006 1 4 5 20 4 1 25 2007 1 8 9 11 4 1 25 2008 8 34 42 19 5 3 60 2009 6 42 48 13 3 2 67 2010 2 21 23 9 5 1 20 2011 2 33 35 6 3 1 33 2012 3 22 25 12 5 2 40 Total 236 40 276 43 11 Average 14.5 25.6 (A49185) 20

Table 8. Burnt-Pine population census and calf recruitment survey, March 2012. Location type was defined as “visual” if caribou were located without using telemetry, and “telemetry” if caribou were located using telemetry.

Number Total Location of Number Number Number Number Collared Location Type of of Calves of (Figure 6) Caribou Adults Caribou in Group 1 1 Visual 1 0 1 Total 1 1 0 1 (A49185) 21

Table 9. Calf recruitment and adult mortality for Burnt-Pine caribou, March 2003 to March 2012. Caribou were only included in adult mortality calculations if monitored for an entire year (±30 days to accommodate irregularities in capture and drop-off schedules).

Calf Recruitment Adult Mortality

No. No. No. Percent No. Percent Year Total Collared Calves Adults Calves Mortalities Mortality Caribou

2003 2 14 16 13 0 2004 2 12 14 14 2 1 50 2005 1 8 9 11 2 0 0 2006 2 15 17 12 2 0 0 2007 1 0 0 2008 2 11 13 15 1 0 0 2009 0 11 11 0 1 0 0 2010 0 19 19 0 3 0 0 2011 0 5 5 0 1 1 100 2012 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Total 9 96 105 14 2 Average 8.6 14.3 (A49185) 22

Table 10. Kennedy Siding population census and calf recruitment survey, March 2012. Location type was defined as “visual” if caribou were located without using telemetry, and “telemetry” if caribou were located using telemetry.

Number Total Location of Number Number Number Number Collared Location Type of of of (Figure 7) Caribou Adults Calves Caribou in Group 1 0 Visual 2 0 2 2 0 Visual 4 0 4 3 3 Visual 5 1 6 4 1 Visual 4 0 4 5 0 Visual 3 0 3 6 0 Visual 1 1 2 7 0 Visual 6 1 7 8 2 Visual 2 0 2 9 1 Visual 1 1 2 10 1 Visual 7 2 9 Total 8 35 6 41 (A49185) 23

Table 11. Calf recruitment and adult mortality for Kennedy Siding caribou, March 2003 to March 2012. Caribou were only included in adult mortality calculations if monitored for an entire year (±30 days to accommodate irregularities in capture and drop-off schedules).

Calf Recruitment Adult Mortality

No. No. No. Percent No. Percent Year Total Collared Calves Adults Calves Mortalities Mortality Caribou

2003 9 34 43 21 2 0 0 2004 9 51 60 15 5 1 20 2005 4 48 52 8 9 2 22 2006 16 75 91 18 6 0 0 2007 17 103 120 14 12 1 8 2008 - - - - 9 2 22 2009 4 56 60 7 17 2 12 2010 3 25 28 11 15 2 13 2011 2 42 44 5 14 4 29 2012 6 35 41 15 3 0 0 Total 70 469 539 92 14 Average 13.0 15.5 (A49185) 24

Table 12. Summary of population parameters for caribou herds in the Central Mountain Designatable Unit of British Columbia.

Average Average Adult Population Population Percent Herd Mortality Estimate Estimate Trend Calves Rate (Year) Method (2002 – 2012) (2002 – 2012)

173-218 Mark- Stable/ Quintette 15 9 (2008) Resight Increasing Bearhole- 23 Minimum 10 22 Declining Redwillow (2012) Count 25 Mark- Moberly 14 26 Declining (2011) Resight 1 Mark- Burnt-Pine 9 14 Declining (2012) Resight Kennedy 41 Mark- 13 15 Declining Siding (2012) Resight 2

(A49185) 25 . 8 6 2 14 41 11 Total 1 2 3 4 1 11 Unknown of Columbiaof British 3 8 2 0 3 0 Predator Unknown 1 0 0 0 1 2 Wolverine Central Mountain Designatable Unit Designatable Mountain Central 1 0 0 0 1 2 Bear 2 3 3 1 7 16 Wolf for caribou herds caribou in the for 1 0 1 2 0 0 Accident dult mortality - Pine - . Causes of of a . Causes Total Herd Siding Moberly Kennedy Quintette Bearhole Burnt Redwillow Table 13 Table (A49185) 26

References

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association. 2010. Status of the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Alberta: Update 2010. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Wildlife Status Report No. 30 (Update 2010). Edmonton, AB. 88 pp.

Bergerud, A. T. 1988. Caribou, wolves and man. – Trends in Ecology and Evolution 3: 68–72.

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, ON, Canada. 106pp.

Culling, D. E. & Culling, B. A. 2009. Graham caribou herd 2009 Late Winter Inventory 11-12 March 2009. BC Ministry of Forests, Prince George, BC, Canada.15pp.

Gillingham, M. P., Steenweg, R. W. & Heard, D. C. 2011. Parsnip caribou recovery trial – Report on activities during 2009-2010. Peace/Williston Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program Report No. 339. 21 pp.

Heard, D. C., Seip, D. R., & Watts, G. 2012. Population assessment of caribou in the Central Rocky Mountains Ecoregion. Unpublished report.

Heard, D. C., Seip, D. R., Watts, G. & Wilson, D.. 2010. March 2010 Mountain caribou census in the Prince George Forest District. Unpublished report.

Jones, E. S. 2008. Seasonal habitat use and selection by woodland caribou herds in the South Peace region, central British Columbia. Habitat Conservation Trust Fund Project No. 7-325. Report prepared for the BC Ministry of Environment. Fort St. John, BC, Canada. 56pp.

Jones, E. S., Gillingham, M. P., Seip, D. R. & Heard, D. C. 2007. Comparison of seasonal habitat selection between threatened woodland caribou ecotypes in central British Columbia. – Rangifer Special Issue No. 17: 111–128.

Seip, D. R. 2002. Ecological relationships between threatened caribou herds and their habitat in the Central Rocky Mountains ecoregion. BC Ministry of Forests. Prince George, BC, Canada. 15pp.

Seip, D. R. & Cichowski, D. B. 1996. Population ecology of caribou in British Columbia. – Rangifer Special Issue No. 9: 73–80.

Seip, D. R. & Jones, E. S. 2011. Population Status of Threatened Caribou Herds in the Central Rockies Ecoregion of British Columbia, 2011. BC Ministry of Forests. Prince George, BC, Canada. 23pp. . (A49185) 27

TERA Environmental Consultants. 1997. Large mammal surveys of the upper Pine River/Carbon Creek Watersheds British Columbia February and March 1997. Report for Talisman Energy Inc. Calgary, AB, Canada. 29pp.

White, G. C. 1996. NOREMARK: population estimation from mark-resighting surveys. – Wildlife Society Bulletin 24: 50–52. 6 (A49185) Herds , 2012 2012 of Caribouof tatus October S British Columbia British Dale SeipDale and Elena Jones within Central Mountain Designatable Unit Designatable Mountain Central Population the in (A49185) i