Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) specific populations: COSEWIC assessment and status report 2014, annexes

Appendices

Appendix 1. Threats calculator for Caribou – Boreal population

Threats Assessment Worksheet

Species or Ecosystem Scientific Name:
Caribou - Boreal population
Element ID
N/A
Elcode
N/A
Date:
08/09/2014
Assessor(s):
External Experts: Martin-Hughes St-Laurent (TM SSC Member), Dave Hervieux (AB), Dale Seip (BC), Dennis Brannen (MB), Maria Arlt (MB), Joanna Wilson (NT), Lisa Worthington (NT), Darren Elder (ON), Tim Trottier (SK), Stephen Virc (CWS), Melissa Vance (CWS), Greg Wilson (CWS), Rich Russell (CWS), Sylvain Giguère (CWS), Isabelle Thibault (QC), Julien Mainguy (QC), Melinda Lalonde (QC), Claude Dussault (QC)
References:
N/A
Overall Threat Impact Calculation Help:
Threat Impact Threat Impact (descriptions) Level 1 Threat Impact Counts:
high range
Level 1 Threat Impact Counts:
low range
A Very High 0 0
B High 1 0
C Medium 3 2
D Low 1 3
- Calculated Overall Threat Impact: Very High High

 

Threats Assessment Worksheet Table.
# Threat Impact
(calculated)
Scope
(next
10 Yrs)
Severity
(10 Yrs
or
3 Gen.)
Timing Comments
1 Residential & commercial development Negligible Negligible
(<1%)
Extreme
(71-100%)
High
(Continuing)
-
1.1 Housing & urban areas Negligible Negligible
(<1%)
Extreme
(71-100%)
High
(Continuing)
A small portion of the range would be affected (nationally), but if affected, impact is severe (71-100%) - Caribou do not exist in housing/urban areas.
1.2 Commercial & industrial areas Negligible Negligible
(<1%)
Extreme
(71-100%)
High
(Continuing)
Scope: Neglible
* AB (industrial camps): all herds, except mountain Caribou, will be affected. Scope is above neglible for AB and northeastern BC
* NT: there is residential area associated with this threat, but to be included along with residential areas associated with 3.1
1.3 Tourism & recreation areas Negligible Negligible
(<1%)
Negligible
(<1%)
High
(Continuing)
ON: increase not expected over next 10 years (albeit, noise disturbance may be an issue); sites are dispersed and widespread in the northern region
2 Agriculture & aquaculture Negligible Negligible
(<1%)
Extreme
(71-100%)
High
(Continuing)
-
2.2 Wood & pulp plantations Negligible Negligible
(<1%)
Extreme
(71-100%)
High
(Continuing)
Not an issue (tree farm; not forestry)
2.3 Livestock farming & ranching Negligible Negligible
(<1%)
Extreme
(71-100%)
High
(Continuing)
AB: Major issue in some areas; few 100 kms of agricultural land in Caribou range recently made available in NE Alberta
BC: not much incremental stuff happening
3 Energy production & mining CD Medium - Low Large - Restricted
(11-70%)
Moderate - Slight (1-30%) High
(Continuing)
-
3.1 Oil & gas drilling CD Medium - Low Large - Restricted
(11-70%)
Moderate - Slight
(1-30%)
High
(Continuing)
Scope
* AB: in western sedimentary region (AB, BC, SK - south of shield, MB, YK, NT) would be pervasive (71-100%). It won’t take much to affect the Caribou negatively because oil/gas already significant in AB, BC, SK, and MB
Severity: range varies given the variation of the threat across the range
* AB: believes it’ll be more than slight because alienation due to oil/gas; Caribou generally do not exist near piplines and gaslines.
3.2 Mining & quarrying D Low Small
(1-10%)
Extreme
(71-100%)
High
(Continuing)
Scope: Canada is at the borderline of small and negligible (some jurisdictions are higher than 1%)
* ON: barely negligible now, but in the next 10 years, this threat will grow. ON has committed infrastructure support, and footprint will be significant.
* QC: 1-10% due to mining
* NT: nothing
* SK: small, boreal shields have quite a few mines already
* AB: is greater than 1% because this takes into account oil sands, which they did not include in 3.1
4 Transportation & service corridors C Medium Large
(31-70%)
Moderate (11-30%) High
(Continuing)
ROLL UP: all in agreement to increase the Scope to LARGE
4.1 Roads & railroads CD Medium - Low Large - Restricted
(11-70%)
Moderate (11-30%) High
(Continuing)
Scope
* AB and BC: pervasive
* MB: seeing more new roads on the east side
* NT: negligible up north
* QC: large (31-70%) but on the low end of the scope
* SK: has lots of roads and expecting more, which will affect a third of the boreal range
Severity
* would be higher than 3.1 because of displacement associated with roads
* displacement increases predation pressures
4.2 Utility & service lines D Low Restricted - Small
(1-30%)
Moderate - Slight
(1-30%)
High
(Continuing)
Scope: Range is given for Canada, but not near 1%
* NT: small (similar to mining)
* footprint is small but affects a large percentage of Caribou
* QC: small (1-10%)
* most in agreement that scope will not be greater than 30%
5 Biological resource use CD Medium - Low Large - Restricted
(11-70%)
Moderate - Slight
(1-30%)
High
(Continuing)
-
5.1 Hunting & collecting terrestrial animals CD Medium - Low Large - Restricted
(11-70%)
Moderate - Slight
(1-30%)
High
(Continuing)
* AB, MB, and SK: restricted (11-30%)
* ON: unknown but the potential is there
* QC: there is harvesting pressure from First Nations, which were associated with some recent declines
* there are issues of hunting on the 3 Labrador herds
* 100% are at risk but dependent on population size. Bigger herds can sustain harvest
5.2 Gathering terrestrial plants D Low Small
(1-10%)
Extreme
(71-100%)
High
(Continuing)
Includes Peat Moss Harvesting - which is a rapidly increasing industry
* AB: applications standing for more than 10%
* SK: growing as well within the last year
Note: lost habitat takes a long time to regenerate before it can be Caribou habitat again
5.3 Logging & wood harvesting B High Large
(31-70%)
Extreme
(71-100%)
High
(Continuing)
Scope: Large (closer to 30% than 70%)
* AB and SK: pervasive (71-100%), but in the absence of predation, comfortable with large. In the west, 40% of the range is affected by logging
* NT: 100%
* QC: large (31-70%)
* ON: the southern range of ON, about half of that range has seen 10% change in forestry activity
Note: threat would be higher if we use a longer time frame.
Severity: Extreme
* logging impact seen as more significant than oil/gas because Caribou can live in the oil fields (albeit, mortality is higher), but Caribou do not use recent harvest areas.
6 Human intrusions & disturbance Unknown Pervasive (71-100%) Unknown High
(Continuing)
-
6.1 Recreational activities Unknown Large
(31-70%)
Unknown High
(Continuing)
* AB: there are some recreational activities (ex. snowmobile network) that facilitate Wolf travel
* NT: lower up north, about 20% of its range affected
* MB and SK: also have recreational activities (ex. snowmobiles) that would provide access to Caribou habitat.
Severity: Unknown
* difficult to attribute population decline
6.2 War, civil unrest & military exercises Negligible Negligible
(<1%)
Unknown High
(Continuing)
* AB: Cold Lake Weapons range - no calves are surviving, which may be related to low level flying
* impacts for Labrador appear to be minor
6.3 Work & other activities Unknown Pervasive
(71-100%)
Unknown High
(Continuing)
Threat is everywhere across Canada (i.e. surveyors, exploration flights, etc.)
7 Natural system modifications D Low Restricted - Small(1-30%) Moderate - Slight
(1-30%)
High
(Continuing)
-
7.1 Fire & fire suppression D Low Restricted - Small
(1-30%)
Moderate - Slight
(1-30%)
High
(Continuing)
Scope:
* NT: very bad (about 71-100%) but most of the fires this year affected the Barren-ground Caribou and not Boreal Caribou
* BC: closer to 30-40% for the percentage of the range that is affected by burns
* ON: 30-50%
Severity
* 1% of the landscape burns every year; if more fires than normal, it’ll be 11-30%
7.2 Dams & water management/use Negligible Negligible
(<1%)
Extreme
(71-100%)
High
(Continuing)
* BC: zero
* ON: new proposals exist but unlikely to begin in the next 10 years
* SK: also has a few proposals; but wondering about water management around peatmoss harvesting
* One herd in Labrador affected by cumulative impacts, including dam
8 Invasive & other problematic species & genes BC High - Medium Pervasive
(71-100%)
Serious - Moderate
(11-70%)
High
(Continuing)
-
8.1 Invasive non-native/alien species Unknown Unknown Unknown Moderate (Possibly in the short term, < 10 yrs) Note: Caribou typically extirpated in areas with brainworm.
8.2 Problematic native species BC High - Medium Pervasive
(71-100%)
Serious - Moderate
(11-70%)
High
(Continuing)
* AB and BC: 100%
* AB: all boreal Caribou on boreal plains (south of shield) will be gone if mortality rates from predators continue
* NT: if we include predation from roads/oil/gas/logging, pervasive looks good; it’s at least 70%.
Severity: range was decided, but closer to 30-40%.* there are estimate declines available for the last 10 years, but numbers are very crude and no confidence. Everyone is reporting a decline except NT and parts of SK. About a third of the population is in decline but we don’t have earlier population data to compare.
8.3 Introduced genetic material - - - - Not an issue (but this is a threat for DU5 - Newfoundland population)
9 Pollution Negligible Negligible
(<1%)
Unknown High
(Continuing)
Noise pollution was included in other threats
Possible issue with fracking (intensive nature of its footprint)
9.2 Industrial & military effluents Negligible Negligible
(<1%)
Unknown High
(Continuing)
Caribou licking pipeline leaks
11 Climate change & severe weather Unknown Small
(1-10%)
Unknown High
(Continuing)
-
11.1 Habitat shifting & alteration Unknown Small
(1-10%)
Unknown High
(Continuing)
NEEDS FURTHER REVIEW
* NT: this will change habitat faster than human factors. There is a small scale study showing that forests are turning into bogs, but unsure how widespread this is with other northern populations. 10% of the habitat has disappeared in the last 10 years. The rate of permafrost loss is 1-5%/year
* AB: climate change is a factor but can’t see this within the next 10 years.
Reference: Forests on thawing permafrost: fragmentation, edge effects, and net forest loss (Baltzer et al. 2013)
11.3 Temperature extremes Not Calculated (outside assessment timeframe) Pervasive
(71-100%)
Unknown Low (Possibly in the long term, >10 yrs) * QC: this will be a problem in the future
Note: there is not enough information to determine the severity

Appendix 2. Threats calculator for Caribou – Atlantic-Gaspésie population

Threats Assessment Worksheet

Species or Ecosystem Scientific Name:
Caribou – Atlantic-Gaspésie population
Element ID
N/A
Elcode
N/A
Date:
08/09/2014
Assessor(s):
Dave Fraser (moderator), Graham Forbes (TM SSC Co-chair), Isabelle Gauthier (QC), Martin St-Laurent (TM SSC member)
QC: Isabelle Thibault, Julien Mainguy, Melinda Lalonde, Claude Dussault
References:
N/A
Overall Threat Impact Calculation Help:
Threat Impact Threat Impact (descriptions) Level 1 Threat Impact Counts:
high range
Level 1 Threat Impact Counts:
low range
A Very High 3 3
B High 2 2
C Medium 0 0
D Low 2 2
- Calculated Overall Threat Impact: Very High Very High

 

Threats Assessment Worksheet Table.
# Threat Impact
(calculated)
Scope
(next
10 Yrs)
Severity
(10 Yrs
or
3 Gen.)
Timing Comments
1 Residential & commercial development B High Pervasive
(71-100%)
Serious
(31-70%)
High
(Continuing)
-
1.2 Commercial & industrial areas D Low Small
(1-10%)
Serious
(31-70%)
Moderate (Possibly in the short term, < 10 yrs) Natural water pumping station is planned and authorization underway; its location will be adjacent to largest herd.
1.3 Tourism & recreation areas B High Pervasive
(71-100%)
Serious
(31-70%)
High
(Continuing)
Ecolodge already exists within Gaspésie Park, with potential for new development around the national park within the next 10 years. New infrastructure will be within core Caribou habitat.
3 Energy production & mining A Very High Pervasive
(71-100%)
Extreme
(71-100%)
High
(Continuing)
-
3.1 Oil & gas drilling - - - - Not an issue (at present)
3.2 Mining & quarrying C Medium Large
(31-70%)
Moderate
(11-30%)
Moderate (Possibly in the short term, < 10 yrs) There is demand for exploitation annually but no indication that a new mine will be built soon. The potential threat and score is based on past results wherein Caribou quickly abandoned area near new mines built in the 1950s.
3.3 Renewable energy A Very High Pervasive
(71-100%)
Extreme
(71-100%)
High
(Continuing)
There are already a couple of windmills in the area and 3 new projects are under review/analysis. The projected plans place windmills close to the Caribou range. A wind farm is expected within the next 5 years, resulting in impact to > half of the population due to forest/habitat loss.
4 Transportation & service corridors B High Large
(31-70%)
Serious
(31-70%)
High
(Continuing)
Overall rollup for Threat 4 was bumped up to LARGE
4.1 Roads & railroads B High Large
(31-70%)
Serious
(31-70%)
High
(Continuing)
Approximately 75% cumulative disturbance levels at present, based on methods in Environment Canada (2012).
4.2 Utility & service lines D Low Small
(1-10%)
Moderate
(11-30%)
- Been done and still continuing.
4.4 Flight paths - - - - Regular, scheduled aircraft flights are not an issue. Refer to 6.3 for threats due to Ministry’s flight path.
5 Biological resource use A Very High Pervasive
(71-100%)
Extreme
(71-100%)
High
(Continuing)
-
5.1 Hunting & collecting terrestrial animals D Low Restricted
(11-30%)
Slight
(1-10%)
Moderate (Possibly in the short term, < 10 yrs) This one is tricky, because poaching has and does occur in the wildlife reserve. It wouldn’t take much of an increase in poaching to cause a problem.
5.3 Logging & wood harvesting A Very High Pervasive
(71-100%)
Extreme
(71-100%)
High
(Continuing)
Up to 1970, there was still logging in and around the park, which has proved to be problematic. Habitat is still not suitable for Caribou from those early logging practices. Furthermore, the park is still not large enough to protect the Caribou.
Note: predation was not included in this calculation
6 Human intrusions & disturbance D Low Pervasive
(71-100%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
-
6.1 Recreational activities D Low Pervasive
(71-100%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
Recreation (ex. hiking, snowmobile, biking) occurs in and around Gaspésie Park, which is a threat because this causes Caribou to leave areas of higher predation risk.
6.2 War, civil unrest & military exercises Negligible Small
(1-10%)
Negligible
(<1%)
-- Uncertainty Ranges -- There is uncertainty if military training is occurring, but if it does happen, falls within Caribou habitat.
6.3 Work & other activities D Low Pervasive
(71-100%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
Helicopters used for annual surveys but not all of area impacted. Impact to population not expected.
Severity: at most is 1-10%.
7 Natural system modifications Unknown Unknown Unknown High
(Continuing)
-
7.1 Fire & fire suppression Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown No studies have been done
8 Invasive & other problematic species & genes A Very High Pervasive
(71-100%)
Extreme
(71-100%)
High
(Continuing)
-
8.1 Invasive non-native/alien species Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Currently there is no information on pathogens but surveys for Neospora and other diseases underway.
8.2 Problematic native species A Very High Pervasive
(71-100%)
Extreme
(71-100%)
High
(Continuing)
Bears and coyotes are problematic.
9 Pollution Unknown Unknown Moderate - Slight
(1-30%)
Moderate (Possibly in the short term, < 10 yrs) -
9.2 Industrial & military effluents Unknown Unknown Moderate - Slight
(1-30%)
Moderate (Possibly in the short term, < 10 yrs) Proposed water pumping station will generate pollutants but information is lacking to evaluate the potential threat; a range is given for severity.
9.4 Garbage & solid waste - - - - Increase in hunter waste leads to possibility of predation, but not a proximate factor. Recently, waste bins within the parks have been found filled with hunting waste (ex. head, skin, legs).
10 Geological events D Low Small
(1-10%)
Serious
(31-70%)
Moderate (Possibly in the short term, < 10 yrs) -
10.3 Avalanches/landslides D Low Small
(1-10%)
Serious - Moderate
(11-70%)
Moderate (Possibly in the short term, < 10 yrs) Caribou are lost to avalanches ~ every 2 years and a significant % of a small population could be killed in one event.
Scope: only certain mountains are prone to avalanches
11 Climate change & severe weather Unknown Large
(31-70%)
Unknown Moderate (Possibly in the short term, < 10 yrs) -
11.1 Habitat shifting & alteration - Pervasive
(71-100%)
Unknown Low (Possibly in the long term, >10 yrs) -
11.3 Temperature extremes Unknown Large
(31-70%)
Unknown Moderate (Possibly in the short term, < 10 yrs) Mostly due to ice storms that are more and more frequent.

Appendix 3. Threats calculator for Caribou – Newfoundland population

Threats Assessment Worksheet

Species or Ecosystem Scientific Name:
Caribou - Newfoundland population
Element ID
N/A
Elcode
N/A
Date:
29/07/2014
Assessor(s):
Dave F. (moderator), Graham Forbes (TM SSC Co-chair), Shelley Pardy Moores (NL), Donna Hurlburt (ATK SC Co-chair), Ruben Boles (CWS)NL: Isabelle Schmelzer, Kirsten Miller, Rob Otto, Keith Lewis
CWS: Krista Baker
References:
N/A
Overall Threat Impact Calculation Help:
Threat Impact Threat Impact (descriptions) Level 1 Threat Impact Counts:
high range
Level 1 Threat Impact Counts:
low range
A Very High 0 0
B High 0 0
C Medium 1 0
D Low 3 4
- Calculated Overall Threat Impact: High Medium

 

Threats Assessment Worksheet Table.
# Threat Impact
(calculated)
Scope
(next
10 Yrs)
Severity
(10 Yrs
or
3 Gen.)
Timing Comments
1 Residential & commercial development Unknown Small
(1-10%)
Unknown Unknown -
1.1 Housing & urban areas Unknown Small
(1-10%)
Unknown Unknown Scope: based on cabin/cottages and new development in the next 10 years
- believed to be small; 30% is too high for the scope.
Severity: the amount of population impacted from cottages being built
- actual development less concern than hunting/road access/human intrusion, etc.), which will be covered in Threats 5 and 6 below
- based on number of cottages and Crown land, this would be small based on the area of the land
- with no actual evidence or comfort from the experts, consensus was UNKNOWN
1.2 Commercial & industrial areas Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown UNKNOWN; NL does not have anything proposed in the next 10 years
1.3 Tourism & recreation areas Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown UNKNOWN; NL does not have anything proposed in the next 10 years
2 Agriculture & aquaculture Negligible Negligible
(<1%)
Negligible
(<1%)
High
(Continuing)
-
2.1 Annual & perennial non-timber crops Not a Threat Negligible
(<1%)
Neutral or Potential Benefit High
(Continuing)
There is small amount of cranberry farming in past but nothing presently
Scope: even if new cranberry farming is proposed, it’ll be < 1%
Severity: experts are unsure: could be Negligible or Neutral/Potential Benefit
2.2 Wood & pulp plantations - - - - Experts decided to leave BLANK - doesn’t seem to fit and would be small for planted pine
2.3 Livestock farming & ranching Negligible Negligible
(<1%)
Negligible
(<1%)
High
(Continuing)
There are no new proposals, but if determining the threat from the current farming/ranching, threat would be negligible.
3 Energy production & mining D Low Large
(31-70%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
-
3.1 Oil & gas drilling Negligible Negligible
(<1%)
Negligible
(<1%)
Low (Possibly, >10 yrs) Possibly ‘small’ in the next 10 years; there is a current moratorium on fracking. It will be small, but definitely emerging; there will be some habitat loss, but probably minimal.
3.2 Mining & quarrying D Low Large
(31-70%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
This industry is rapidly growing in NL
Severity: evidence that the Caribou avoid area of mining, and therefore population decline, is minimal. There could be habitat loss but population may not be affected
- there is a lot of uncertainty but it’s at the low end of 1-10%
- a lot of the mining/quarrying activity is in the exploration stage and we don’t have the information on what the impacts would be. Reference: Weir et al. (2007)
3.3 Renewable energy D Low Small
(1-10%)
Moderate
(11-30%)
High
(Continuing)
Scope: there is impact on movement but on the low end of 1-10%
- there is small impact on a small % of the population
4 Transportation & service corridors Negligible Large
(31-70%)
Negligible
(<1%)
High
(Continuing)
-
4.1 Roads & railroads Negligible Negligible
(<1%)
Negligible
(<1%)
High
(Continuing)
Scope: focus here is on roadkill; at least 31-70% of the sub-populations are affected by the roads; there are lots of logging roads and highways in NL, but the threat may be slight or negligible, based on just roadkill.
Severity: experts don’t believe that more than 300 Caribou would be hit by a car/year based on 30000+ Caribou on NL
4.2 Utility & service lines Negligible Large
(31-70%)
Negligible
(<1%)
High
(Continuing)
Scope: dealing with just the actual utility and not the spillover effect
- a new 700 km² line is coming in so this threat will increase; part of that line is borrowing from existing infrastructure. Construction is over a large part of the peninsula and continues to the centre of the island. It’s a large area, but not all area will have Caribou associated with it
- numerous transmission lines in Caribou existing habitat
- the new line added to Labrador was over 6 times as wide but we are uncertain about the width of the new line for NL.
Severity: severity to be determined
- don’t anticipate that Caribou will be killed at the construction; they will most likely avoid the area; mitigation in effect to avoid blasting when Caribou are present; once the line is built, it doesn’t seem to bother the Caribou. The main issue is the planning (line location) and construction.
5 Biological resource use D Low Pervasive
(71-100%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
-
5.1 Hunting & collecting terrestrial animals D Low Pervasive (71-100%) Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
Scope: the extent of the population under harvest pressure (legal and illegal)!
- Shelley: a majority of the range isn’t opened for hunting. We might need to go with the number of permits (740 licences/year).
- we need to look at the % of the hunting (exclude area where hunting is not allowed & poaching does not exist). Hunting is most likely pervasive
Severity: fairly minor decline. there is a population model that shows decline from hunting and decline with no hunting
- we will need to revisit the numbers in the model to get a better understanding of the range
5.3 Logging & wood harvesting D Low Large
(31-70%)
Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
Scope: what % of caribou would experience logging pressure or logging system? the range is equally divided between forested and non-forested areas.
Severity: what would be the 3 generation decline in the last 10 years?
- behavioural response is avoidance of the area; they avoid the cutting, may return for new growth
- present impact is slight; NL did have the 2-3 major pulp mills but they have been closed or reduced in capacity.
References: Chubbs et al. (2007); Schaefer and Mahoney (2007); Hebert (2012)
6 Human intrusions & disturbance D Low Pervasive (71-100%) Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
-
6.1 Recreational activities D Low Pervasive (71-100%) Slight
(1-10%)
High
(Continuing)
Scope: What % of these Caribou experience human activities (ex. ATV, skidoo, snowmobiles); believe activity is definitely ‘high’. Gros Morne gets very high snowmobile activities
- energetic impact: some people chase and drive the machines towards Caribou but this is probably negligible in terms of population impact.
Reference: Mahoney et al. (2001)
6.2 War, civil unrest & military exercises Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Not applicable or UNKNOWN
- Shelley: military exercises may occur on the island; they get 1-2 calls/year from military regarding training exercises
6.3 Work & other activities Negligible Restricted
(11-30%)
Negligible
(<1%)
High
(Continuing)
Research would fall into this category (radio-collaring work)
There is some painting (marking individuals) planned (in any one year, there could be 20-30 painting) but don’t know if there is mortality associated with it. Even if there are 1-2 deaths, that won’t affect the overall decline
7 Natural system modifications Negligible Negligible
(<1%)
Unknown High
(Continuing)
-
7.1 Fire & fire suppression Negligible Negligible
(<1%)
Unknown High
(Continuing)
Scope: there are fires every year on the island, but usually very low
- the number of Caribou affected is small, possibly just on the Avalon peninsula and the portion of Caribou on the peninsula affected would be negligible
7.2 Dams & water management/use - - - - Not applicable - there are no new proposals
7.3 Other ecosystem modifications - - - - Not applicable: conversion for Moose browsing believed to not cause an impact on Caribou
8 Invasive & other problematic species & genes CD Medium - Low Pervasive (71-100%) Moderate - Slight (1-30%) High (Continuing) -
8.1 Invasive non-native/alien species D Low Pervasive - Large (31-100%) Slight (1-10%) High (Continuing) Brainworm: introduced by Reindeer from Norway
- we don’t know the infection rate, but most Caribou appear to develop an immunity since the 1990s; scope of 31-100% to cover some of the uncertainty
8.2 Problematic native species CD Medium - Low Pervasive (71-100%) Moderate - Slight (1-30%) High (Continuing) increase in Moose numbers will benefit the Coyote
Severity: rank as 1-30% but we will revisit the data and update the group
8.3 Introduced genetic material - - - - Little to no genetic interchange between Newfoundland Caribou and Norwegian Reindeer when Reindeer were introduced to Newfoundland in the early 1900s. Reference: Wilkerson (2010).
11 Climate change & severe weather Unknown Large (31-70%) Unknown Unknown Climate change is something to consider, but there is no data showing how Caribou are reacting. Plant phenology may impact calving and feeding, but unknown. Freezing events noted in southern part of the range.
11.1 Habitat shifting & alteration Unknown Large (31-70%) Unknown Unknown Could be an issue
11.3 Temperature extremes Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Could be an issue

Glossary

Impact
The degree to which a species is observed, inferred, or suspected to be directly or indirectly threatened in the area of interest. The impact of each threat is based on Severity and Scope rating and considers only present and future threats. Threat impact reflects a reduction of a species population or decline/degradation of the area of an ecosystem. The median rate of population reduction or area decline for each combination of scope and severity corresponds to the following classes of threat impact: Very High (75% declines), High (40%), Medium (15%), and Low (3%). Unknown: used when impact cannot be determined (e.g., if values for either scope or severity are unknown); Not Calculated: impact not calculated as threat is outside the assessment timeframe (e.g., timing is insignificant/negligible or low as threat is only considered to be in the past); Negligible: when scope or severity is negligible; Not a Threat: when severity is scored as neutral or potential benefit.
Scope
Proportion of the species that can reasonably be expected to be affected by the threat within 10 years. Usually measured as a proportion of the species’ population in the area of interest. (Pervasive = 71–100%; Large = 31–70%; Restricted = 11–30%; Small = 1–10%; Negligible < 1%).
Severity
Within the scope, the level of damage to the species from the threat that can reasonably be expected to be affected by the threat within a 10-year or three-generation timeframe. Usually measured as the degree of reduction of the species’ population. (Extreme = 71–100%; Serious = 31–70%; Moderate = 11–30%; Slight = 1–10%; Negligible < 1%; Neutral or Potential Benefit > 0%).
Timing
High = continuing; Moderate = only in the future (could happen in the short term [< 10 years or 3 generations]) or now suspended (could come back in the short term); Low = only in the future (could happen in the long term) or now suspended (could come back in the long term); Insignificant/Negligible = only in the past and unlikely to return, or no direct effect but limiting.

Page details

Date modified: