Changes in caribou habitat are tracked by quantifying the amount of disturbed area within caribou range, which is a key component of the federal definition of critical habitat for woodland caribou (ECCC 2020; Environment Canada 2011, 2014). For each caribou range, the amount of disturbed area is estimated annually from 1960 to the most current year of data. Caribou range boundaries are delineated by provincial jurisdictions.
Disturbance data
Disturbances within caribou range are modelled using Geographic Information System (GIS) data representing various disturbance types, including: burns (i.e., wildfire), timber harvest, roads, geophysical exploration lines (e.g., seismic lines), clearings related to oil and gas resource development (e.g., pipelines and well pads), forests killed from mountain pine beetle, and other anthropogenic disturbances such as mines, agriculture, railways, and urban areas.
The data sets used represent the best available data for the given jurisdiction (i.e., Alberta or BC) and disturbance type. Note that each data set will vary in the degree to which they accurately and precisely represent the true disturbance footprint, and thus outputs from all analyses should be viewed as best estimates of disturbance impacts within caribou range. See Data Sources for more information on each data set used to quantify disturbance.
Most data sets contain information on the date of disturbance creation (i.e., timestamped data), which is necessary to track annual changes in disturbed area. However, data sets do differ in their timespans. For example, in British Columbia, the timespan for burns and timber harvest data extends to 2024 whereas all other disturbance types have data sets that extend only to 2021. Similarly, in Alberta burns and timber harvest data extends to 2024, but the timespan of other disturbance data extends only to 2022.
All data sets are clipped to caribou range boundaries. For each caribou range, three metrics are tracked: the Current State of Disturbance, the Cumulative Rate of Disturbance, and the Net Rate of Disturbance.
Calculating the current state of disturbance
The Current State of Disturbance metric provides estimates of the percentage of the range area impacted by disturbance within a given caribou range up to the most current years of data. Four key estimates are provided:
The Cumulative Extent of Disturbance
- The percentage of the range area impacted cumulatively by disturbance up to the most current years of data.
- This metric does not consider recovery from disturbance.
The Extent of Recovered Disturbance
- The percentage of the range area where disturbances are considered recovered (see Net Rate of Disturbance below).
The Extent of Net Disturbance (Unbuffered)
- The percentage of the range impacted by the disturbance footprint where recovered disturbances are not considered part of the disturbance footprint (see Net Rate of Disturbance below).
The Extent of Net Disturbance (Buffered)
- The percentage of the range impacted by unrecovered disturbance where human-caused disturbances are buffered by 500 metres, which follows federal definitions of disturbance within caribou range (ECCC 2020; Environment Canada 2011). Note that this buffered metric will differ from federal estimates because of differences in the disturbance data used and differences in recovery criteria.
The Current State of Disturbance also provides estimates of the percentage of the range area impacted by each disturbance type and, for disturbance types that can recover to undisturbed, the percentage of the range area covered by disturbances recovered and unrecovered. Note that estimates by disturbance type do not consider 500 metre buffers.
Calculating the cumulative rate of disturbance
The Cumulative Rate of Disturbance estimates the cumulative amount of disturbance annually within a given caribou range from 1960 to the most current year of data. Because this metric is cumulative and does not consider recovery from disturbance, the rate will always be greater than zero (i.e., never decreasing). Estimates are presented both as the percentage of the range area disturbed and the actual area of disturbance (in hectares). Estimates are also provided for each disturbance type (i.e., burns, forest harvest, and linear features).
Plots of annual estimates through time provide an evaluation of trends in the rate of disturbance accumulation within a given caribou range since 1960. In addition, histograms depicting the amount of disturbance created within caribou range during a given year or decade are also provided for each disturbance type to further evaluate trends in the rate of disturbance accumulation.
Calculating the net rate of disturbance
For a subset of disturbance types—timber harvest and burns—, disturbances are allowed to recover back to undisturbed habitat. Timber harvest and burns are thought to influence caribou population declines by increasing leafy, deciduous forage for other ungulates (e.g., moose and deer), causing their populations to increase as well as those of their generalist predators (e.g., wolves), which incidentally prey on caribou at unsustainable rates. Because this process is initiated by an increase in forage for moose and deer, an intuitive criterion for recovery is when forage production in disturbed areas returns to pre-disturbance levels (DeMars et al. 2025; Appendix A).
Forage production for moose and deer was modelled by the annual amplitude of change in the Enhanced Vegetation Index (ΔEVI; Gagné et al. 2016; Serrouya et al. 2021, DeMars et al. 2025). The ΔEVI index is sensitive to changes in deciduous and herbaceous vegetation, which comprise a high proportion of moose and deer diet (Breithaupt et al. 2024; Dumont et al. 2005; Renecker and Hudson 1992). The ΔEVI index has also shown positive correlations with moose and deer densities (Dickie et al. 2024; Serrouya et al. 2021) and moose occupancy (Gagné et al. 2016). Generalized additive mixed-effects models (GAMMs) were used to evaluate the response of ΔEVI pre- and post-disturbance in harvested and burned areas (Appendix A). Recovery was identified as the time taken (in years) for ΔEVI to return to its pre-disturbance geometric mean. Users can vary the time for recovery within the 95% confidence interval for a given recovery estimate using the Range Disturbance and Recovery Tool. Because the recovery process can vary by climate and other site conditions (Anyomi et al., 2022), recovery criteria were estimated for different biogeoclimatic zones in British Columbia and natural subregions in Alberta (Appendix A). Both classification systems partition large geographic areas into units (zones or subregions) with relatively uniform climatic conditions and distinct vegetation communities.
At this time, recovery trajectories for other disturbance types are not considered. Some disturbances are effectively permanent, such as agriculture and urban areas, and are unlikely to transition back to mature forest. Other polygonal disturbances such as abandoned oil well pads and borrow pits are expected to recover eventually, but most have not shown significant recovery within the timespan of available data, particularly when assessed using ΔEVI-based analyses.
For linear features (e.g., seismic lines and trails), which represent an important and widespread disturbance type, recovery is highly variable and often constrained by site-specific factors such as soil compaction, altered hydrology, repeated human use, and the persistence of early-successional vegetation (van Rensen et al. 2015; Dabros et al. 2018). These “site-limiting factors” mean that vegetation regeneration on linear features is frequently slow or stalled, and recovery is not strongly linked to disturbance age as it is for burns or timber harvest. Consequently, tracking recovery over time is challenging.
In future iterations of the CHIP tool, the current state of vegetation regeneration on seismic lines and trails will be evaluated using light detection and ranging (lidar) data.
Estimating the annual disturbance footprint
To estimate the amount of disturbed area per range annually from 1960 to the most current year of data, all disturbances known to occur during or before 1960 are placed in each range. In each subsequent year, disturbances occurring in that year are added in the following order: seismic lines, pipelines, mountain pine beetle, timber harvest, agriculture / cultivation, abandoned well sites, residential areas, transmission lines, recreational areas, other vegetated surfaces, landfills, active well sites, industrial sites, mines, verges, canals, railways, roads, BPSDL (borrow pits, sumps, dugouts, and lagoons), hydroelectric dams and reservoirs, then burns. Added disturbances superseded existing disturbances where overlaps occurred (e.g., an area of timber harvest that was burned was subsequently tracked as a burn). After this process, the amount of disturbed area annually was calculated as the total area (in hectares) of the disturbance footprint.
To derive the various metrics outlined above, the structure of the disturbance footprint varied depending on the metric. Specifically, the annual area of cumulative disturbance is derived by summing the area of all disturbances occurring within a caribou range up to a given year with no consideration of recovery. To estimate the area of net disturbance, disturbances considered to be recovered are removed and only the areas of unrecovered disturbances are summed. For buffered analyses, all unrecovered human-caused disturbances are first buffered by 500 m, then any overlapping buffers are dissolved. This buffered area is then added to the area of unrecovered natural disturbance (e.g., wildfire burns and forested areas affected by pest outbreaks).
The estimates of disturbed area are also expressed as a percentage of the range that is disturbed, using the following equation
% undisturbed = (area of disturbances / range area
where the structure of the numerator is changed to derive the various metrics outlined above. For example, to estimate the percentage of net disturbance, the numerator consists of the summed areas of unrecovered disturbances.
Estimates of the various metrics are also provided at the population level (Boreal, Northern Mountain, and Southern Mountain) and, for Southern Mountain caribou, at the group level (Central, Northern and Southern). For these estimates, the numerator in the above formula comprises the amount of disturbed area per range annually summed across all ranges within the population or group and the denominator is the area of each range summed across all ranges within the population or group.
References
Anyomi, K. A., Neary, B., Chen, J., & Mayor, S. J. (2022). A critical review of successional dynamics in boreal forests of North America. Environmental Reviews, 30(4), 563–594. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2021-0106
Breithaupt, K., Rea, R. V., Gillingham, M. P., Aitken, D. A., & Hodder, D. P. (2024). Using winter diet composition and forage plant availability to determine browse selection and importance for moose (Alces alces) in a landscape modified by industrial forestry. Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research, cpae019. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpae019
Dabros, A., Pyper, M., & Castilla, G. (2018). Seismic lines in the boreal and arctic ecosystems of North America: Environmental impacts, challenges, and opportunities. Environmental Reviews, 26(2), 214–229. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2017-0080
DeMars, C. A., Dickie, M., Lewis, D. W., Habib, T. J., Wong, M. M., & Serrouya, R. (2025). When is habitat recovered? Understanding the mechanisms of population decline to evaluate habitat recovery for boreal caribou. Conservation Science and Practice, 7(8), e70113. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.70113
Dickie, M., Serrouya, R., Becker, M., DeMars, C., Noonan, M. J., Steenweg, R., Boutin, S., & Ford, A. T. (2024). Habitat alteration or climate: What drives the densities of an invading ungulate? Global Change Biology, 30(4), e17286. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17286
Dumont, A., Ouellet, J.-P., Crête, M., & Huot, J. (2005). Winter foraging strategy of white-tailed deer at the northern limit of its range. Écoscience, 12(4), 476–484. https://doi.org/10.2980/i1195-6860-12-4-476.1
ECCC. (2020). Amended recovery strategy for the woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), boreal population, in Canada. Environment and Climate Change Canada. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2021/eccc/En3-4-140-2020-eng.pdf
Environment Canada. (2011). Scientific assessment to inform the identification of critical habitat for woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), boreal population, in Canada. Environment Canada.
Environment Canada. (2014). Recovery strategy for the woodland caribou, southern mountain population (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Canada. (Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series). Environment Canada.
Gagné, C., Mainguy, J., & Fortin, D. (2016). The impact of forest harvesting on caribou–moose–wolf interactions decreases along a latitudinal gradient. Biological Conservation, 197, 215–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.03.015
Johnson, C. A., Sutherland, G. D., Neave, E., Leblond, M., Kirby, P., Superbie, C., & McLoughlin, P. D. (2020). Science to inform policy: Linking population dynamics to habitat for a threatened species in Canada. Journal of Applied Ecology, 57(7), 1314–1327. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13637
Renecker, L. A., & Hudson, R. J. (1992). Habitat and forage selection of moose in the aspen-dominated boreal forest, central Alberta. Alces, 28, 189–201.
Serrouya, R., Dickie, M., Lamb, C., van Oort, H., Kelly, A. P., DeMars, C., McLoughlin, P. D., Larter, N. C., Hervieux, D., Ford, A. T., & Boutin, S. (2021). Trophic consequences of terrestrial eutrophication for a threatened ungulate. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 288(1943), 20202811. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.2811
van Rensen, C. K., Nielsen, S. E., White, B., Vinge, T., & Lieffers, V. J. (2015). Natural regeneration of forest vegetation on legacy seismic lines in boreal habitats in Alberta’s oil sands region. Biological Conservation, 184, 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.01.020