A METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR CARIBOU ACTION PLANNING IN SUPPORT OF THE CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT

Transcription

1 VISIT US ON CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT.COM A METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR CARIBOU ACTION PLANNING IN SUPPORT OF THE CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT Iteration 1 Prepared for: The Science Committee and the National Working Group on Goals 2 and 3 of the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement Prepared by: Terry Antoniuk, Salmo Consulting Inc. Elston Dzus, Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc. John Nishi, EcoBorealis Consulting Inc. September 2012 CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM Bank Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6B9 Tel: info@borealagreement.ca ENTENTE SUR LA FORET BOREALE CANADIENNE. COM , rue Bank, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6B9 Tél. : info@borealagreement.ca

2 A Methodological Framework for Caribou Action Planning In Support of the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement Antoniuk, T., E. Dzus, and J. Nishi Copyright 2012, the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement About the CBFA On May 18, 2010, 21 member companies of the Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC), and nine leading environmental organizations unveiled an unprecedented agreement that applies to 72 million hectares of public forests licensed to FPAC members. The Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement (CBFA), when fully implemented, will conserve significant areas of the vast boreal forest in Canada and protect threatened woodland caribou. It will also apply the highest environmental standards to forest management and provide a competitive market edge for participating companies. Forestry companies currently participating in the Agreement: Alberta Pacific Forest Industries Inc., AV Group, Canfor Pulp Limited Partnership, Canfor Corporation, Cariboo Pulp & Paper Company, Conifex, DMI, Fortress Paper Ltd. Howe Sound Pulp and Paper Corporation, Kruger Inc., LP Canada, Mercer International, Mill & Timber Products Ltd, Miller Western Forest Products Ltd., Resolute Forest Products, Tembec Inc., Tolko Industries, West Fraser Timber Co. Ltd, Weyerhaeuser Company Limited. Environmental organizations participating in the Agreement: Canadian Boreal Initiative, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Canopy, the David Suzuki Foundation, ForestEthics, Greenpeace, Ivey Foundation, the Nature Conservancy, and the Pew Environment Group s International Boreal Conservation Campaign. The financial support of the Ivey, Pew and Hewlett Foundations, the Nature Conservancy, and FPAC were essential to the negotiation and implementation of the agreement. For further information on the CBFA, visit Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement Secretariat Bank Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6B9 Tel: (613) info@borealagreement.ca CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM i

3 CONTENTS GUIDANCE NOTE ON REVIEW OF THIS ITERATION PREAMBLE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IV V VIII 1. BACKGROUND 1 2. STRUCTURE Goal of Caribou Action Planning Principles for Action Planning Definition of the Planning Area Existing Management Policies, Strategies, and Plans 4 3. METHODOLOGY Characterizing Range Condition (Current and Future) Range Delineation Large Continuous Range Small Discrete Range Habitat Suitability and Mortality Risk Inputs Current Range Condition Future Range Condition Delineating Best Available Habitat Other Risk Factors Defining Management Measures Applying Disturbance Thresholds Best Management Practices Adaptive Management Measures SUMMARY REFERENCES 18 APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY 23 APPENDIX B. DATA SOURCES FOR CURRENT RANGE CONDITION ANALYSES 26 APPENDIX C. DATA SOURCES FOR FUTURE RANGE CONDITION ANALYSES 30 APPENDIX D. TEMPLATE FOR ASSESSING CARIBOU ACTION PLANS 32 APPENDIX E. DISTURBANCE THRESHOLD EXAMPLES 36 CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM ii

4 FIGURE 1. CBFA CARIBOU REGIONAL ACTION PLANNING FLOW CHART 5 FIGURE 2. PLANNING AREA INCORPORATING DESIGNATED RANGE PLUS BUFFER TO REFLECT PREDATION RISK 7 FIGURE 3. CONCEPTUAL SCHEMATIC OF ONE-ZONE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 15 FIGURE 4. CONCEPTUAL SCHEMATICS OF TWO-ZONE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 15 FIGURE 5. CONCEPTUAL SCHEMATIC OF THREE-ZONE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 15 CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM iii

5 GUIDANCE NOTE The CBFA is sharing the Methodological Framework for Caribou Action Planning in the interest of fostering better alignment between its own planning efforts and those of its partners in the recovery of boreal woodland caribou. In reviewing this framework, please keep in mind the following: It will be revised by the CBFA Science Committee and National Working Group on Goals 2 and 3 (NWG 2/3) in the Fall of 2012 to: combine it with a protected areas methodological framework and a socio-economic assessment framework to form an integrated product tentatively entitled the Integrated Guide to CBFA Planning ; address the findings and conclusions of Environment Canada s Phase II science and other forthcoming products being developed by Environment Canada for the anticipated National Recovery Strategy for Boreal Woodland Caribou; and address the lessons learned from CBFA Phase 1 planning that have emerged to Sept 15, As per above, this framework is the first iteration. Please also note that in implementing the framework, CBFA regional working groups (RWGs) are directed to pay close attention to the local policy framework in which planning is being undertaken. Additionally, the CBFA will be developing further guidance on a number of matters addressed by this framework over the coming months. These include but are not limited to: 1. a refinement to the definition of functional habitat ; more guidance on the issue of disturbance configuration; and elaboration on re-occupancy of disturbed habitat; 2. workshop(s) on the application of the disturbance threshold and zonation approach at the range-level; and 3. a framework for nationally coordinated active adaptive management of caribou action planning. Important information on the overall planning context in which this framework is intended to be applied is given in the Preamble to this document. Finally, please direct all questions and clarifications regarding this document to the CBFA Science Committee and National Working Group for Goals 2 and 3 through coordinator Aran O Carroll (aocarroll@borealagreement.ca). CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM iv

6 PREAMBLE This preamble to the Methodological Framework for Caribou Action Planning sheds light on how methodological frameworks developed by the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement (CBFA) will be integrated in the future, and how CBFA partners will move forward with planning in the interim. 1. CBFA PLANNING FRAMEWORK The Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement Secretariat is producing three key components of a conservation planning framework to support two of its primary goals: Goal 2: The completion of a network of protected areas that, taken as a whole, represents the diversity of ecosystems within the boreal region and serves to provide ecological benchmarks Goal 3: The recovery of species at risk within the boreal forest, including species such as Woodland Caribou The CBFA planning framework is to be based on the best available knowledge and will provide a consistent approach to planning while allowing for flexibility within individual regions. The CBFA National Working Group on Goals 2 and 3 has now commissioned three guidance documents that are component methodological frameworks for: 1. Caribou Action Planning 2. Protected Areas Planning 3. Socio-economic Assessment While each component framework on its own will provide valuable insights and context for CBFA working groups, all three will be integrated into one CBFA planning framework for guidance and direction. Proposed Timelines: Each component framework will be developed in two sequential steps. A first internal iteration will be complete in the fall of 2012 and a final public iteration will be prepared for the spring of In the interim, these products will be revised based upon the experience of our Phase 1 planning and other developments in best available information, including anticipated products from Environment Canada s efforts to develop a National Recovery Strategy for Boreal Woodland Caribou. We are recommending a workshop be held in the near future to support the integration process and to inform the finalization and publication of this CBFA planning framework. Other CBFA Goals: There is a recognized need to develop the CBFA planning framework so that it is integrated with the other goals of the CBFA, in particular Goal 1, Forest Practices, and Goal 4, Climate Friendly Practices. The timeline for this integration step is still to be determined. CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM v

7 2. REGIONAL PLANNING PHASES Phase 1 priority-planning exercises are proceeding in the absence of the component frameworks and the CBFA planning framework. In fact, the frameworks will be revised based on the lessons learned from piloting the CBFA in Phase 1. Phase 1 products will be less refined than products expected from Phase 2 and 3 because: i. many Phase 1 planning exercises have very tight timelines associated with the pressing political or policy contexts; ii. there is a CBFA objective to achieve early wins with the Phase 1 exercises; and iii. many Phase 1 planning exercises will not have had the benefit of guidance from the Independent Science Advisory Team (ISAT), the national working groups on Goal 1, Goals 2 and 3, and Goal 4, and particularly the methodological frameworks. It is not intended that products (e.g. caribou action plans) from Phase 1 exercises will be revisited or revised in the short-term, except as may be provided for under the CBFA. It is expected that these plans would have priority when it comes to the annual review of CBFA products provided for under the Agreement. Sequencing of Goal 2 and Goal 3 planning: The CBFA Steering Committee has encouraged the parties to concurrently address Goals 2 and 3 in an integrated manner during implementation, including during the Phase 1 planning exercises. Nonetheless, there may be strategic reasons to treat these matters separately or in sequence. For instance, it may be wise to choose a narrower scope initially, recognizing: genuine capacity, time, and information constraints; political/policy and other circumstances (e.g. a need for early wins) whereby taking an integrated approach in the short-term would undermine long-term success. However, irrespective of the current policy context and other considerations, all parties have committed to eventually implementing all aspects of the Agreement. Should the parties choose to take a sequential approach to developing and/or implementing Goals 2 and 3, RWGs are encouraged to discuss how the lack of short-term integration will impact their planning process. For example, a step-wise approach may create uncertainties about the consequences (benefits and costs) of early decisions, given that the consequences of the full suite of recommended measures for both goals will be unknown. This may reduce flexibility and creativity around the planning table. These are other important considerations for RWGs to weigh: At each sequential step, the assumption is that there will be a re-evaluation of the cumulative ecological and socio-economic impact of recommended changes. In other words, the benefits and costs of strategies for each iterative planning step are cumulative and should not be measured in isolation from one another. Circumstances may arise that necessitate a review of prior decisions. There is a need to be explicit about what is being aimed for at each stage. For example, will the caribou action plan be designed as a stand-alone product, sufficient to meet the needs of caribou in the absence of any action on Goal 2? Or, will the caribou action plan assume that caribou needs will only be met once Goal 2 is planned for, and protected areas are added to a suite of caribou management actions? CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM vi

8 3. DECISION-MAKING IN SUPPORT OF THE TWIN PILLARS The CBFA planning framework will help establish a scientific foundation for decision-making throughout the CBFA process. However, the framework, in and of itself, is not a guide to making social choices. Further guidance is needed on how information developed in applying the framework can best be used by decisionmakers to achieve the goals and objectives of the CBFA. The planning framework should address this issue by recommending a fully integrated planning process, from development of analysis and information at a technical level, through to the exercise of social choice. As an overarching principle, the CBFA aims to concurrently achieve high degrees of ecological integrity and socio-economic prosperity the twin pillars - guided by the best available information and by its other principles (CBFA, Section 10). The Agreement recognizes that it may not always be possible to achieve these objectives concurrently in the short- to mid-term. There are circumstances where achieving high degrees of ecological integrity in the short- to mid-term may have too much of a socio-economic impact, or vice versa. If it is not possible to concurrently achieve these objectives in the short- to mid-term, a social choice can be made to depart from the overarching objective of simultaneously achieving both pillars. The choice should be: made within the context of the CBFA to ensure the objectives are achieved as quickly as possible; informed by the best available information on short- to mid-term ecological and socio-economic impacts; made by the signatories to the CBFA, not by the ISAT, in the context of developing CBFA products, and by governments in the context of implementing final decisions; made in a transparent manner; and accompanied by a plan showing how to concurrently achieve low ecological risk and high degrees of socio-economic prosperity over the long term. CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM vii

9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Over the course of its development, the Methodological Framework for Caribou Action Planning has been subject to an extensive internal and external review process. (See the diagram on page ix for an overview of the process.) We would like to first and foremost thank the Independent Science Advisory Team (ISAT) authors who actively prepared and presented these materials to reviewers as they were in development, and subsequently revised and adjusted the product: Terry Antoniuk P.Bio., R.P.Bio., Salmo Consulting Inc. Elston Dzus, PhD, Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc. John Nishi, MSc, EcoBorealis Consulting Inc. The CBFA similarly thanks the external expert reviewers who committed their time to a critical review of the document and prepared extensive comments to guide the revision process: Martin-Hugues St-Laurent, PhD, Université du Québec à Rimouski Justina C. Ray, PhD, Wildlife Conservation Society Canada Through the National Working Group for Goals 2 and 3, the CBFA partners themselves also made a significant contribution to review of the product. The group s members include some of Canada s most experienced and knowledgeable experts on Caribou conservation, including: Allan Bell, Tolko Rick Bonar, West Fraser Timber Co Ltd. Amanda Carr, Canopy Wendy Crosina, Weyerhaeuser Elston Dzus, Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc. Rick Groves, Resolute Forest Products Pierre Iachetti, ForestEthics Chris Miller, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) Rachel Plotkin, David Suzuki Foundation Jim Stephenson, Canfor Meredith Trainor, International Boreal Conservation Campaign Alan Thorne, Tembec Jim Witiw, Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd. Aran O Carroll, CBFA National Planning Coordinator Finally, the CBFA Science Committee played a central role in guiding the development and review of this framework. Its members include: Fiona Schmiegelow, CBFA Senior Science Advisor and Independent Chair of the Science Committee Charles Drever, The Nature Conservancy Daren Sleep, National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) Shawn Wasel, Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc. Jeff Wells, Boreal Songbird Initiative Chuck Rumsey, CBFA National Science Coordinator CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM viii

10 CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM ix

11 1. BACKGROUND 1 The Methodological Framework for Caribou Action Planning provides a structure for: (a) collating our current understanding of the known or likely causes of decline in woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) boreal populations (hereafter boreal caribou); and (b) recommending suites of current and emerging management tools to achieve caribou conservation in a given region. The framework is a guiding document for Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement (CBFA) regional working group members and planning practitioners. It is intended to help jointly-produced CBFA caribou action plans meet a consistent and high standard of quality and completeness; it is not intended to be a comprehensive review of the scientific literature on caribou ecology or recovery planning. By incorporating principles, criteria, and critical analyses that address both causes of declines and scientific uncertainty, CBFA caribou action plans will address current conservation challenges and opportunities for Canada s boreal forests. This will improve their linkage to relevant government management and recovery processes (hereafter government caribou action plans or GCAPs). Provincial and territorial governments are the primary authority for caribou management and monitoring in Canada. Federal government involvement reflects the legal designation of boreal caribou as threatened under the Species at Risk Act (SARA). As outlined in the CBFA Goal 3 decision note (May 14, 2010), regional working groups are to first evaluate finalized or in-progress GCAPs relative to this CBFA methodological framework. Figure 1 illustrates the steps outlined in this paragraph. If the GCAP is consistent with this framework, then little or no additional work is required. Efforts can then focus on jointly advocating for implementation of the GCAP. If there are gaps or inconsistencies between the GCAP and the CBFA methodological framework, RWGs will want to address them. In the absence of a GCAP for any given region, the RWG will need to develop its own CBFA caribou action plan(s). The methodological framework and its associated evaluation tool are intended to help regional working groups gain broad-based support for implementing caribou conservation measures. Regional working groups will need to adapt guidance from the framework to accommodate regional variations in ecological factors, land use activities, and socio-economic situations. Advice provided through the CBFA caribou action plans is intended to accelerate development and implementation of GCAPs. The preamble to Schedule A of the CBFA notes that appropriate conservation actions for caribou action planning include measures for both protection and management. The protection measures outlined therein relate primarily to habitat conservation (e.g., through long-term deferrals and creation of new protected areas), while management measures can include a suite of habitat- or population-based activities at the tenure and/or range level. Population management measures are the direct mandate of provincial/territorial governments (possibly in collaboration with Aboriginal governments). In contrast, the mandate for habitat management measures is shared by forestry companies, other tenure holders (e.g., in the oil and gas sector), governments, and other land users (such as recreational users). CBFA caribou action plans should identify a comprehensive suite of conservation measures, addressing both population and habitat, and identify the parties responsible for implementing them. For example, CBFA signatories (2010) may be able to recommend habitat-based conservation actions (e.g., identify potential protected areas), even though implementation of such a measure is government-mandated. 1. A glossary of terms used in the framework is provided in Appendix 1. CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 1

12 The Methodological Framework for Caribou Action Planning is intended to be a technical guidance document with a foundation in science and other local knowledge bases. The CBFA asserts that regional working groups start with the science (i.e., what measures would be taken if acting solely on the basis of best available science) and then overlay this with a consideration of agreed upon social and economic criteria. Further guidance to CBFA working groups on integrating ecologically-based science and socio-economic evaluations is provided in the attached preamble, other CBFA documentation and in non-cbfa literature (e.g., Environment Canada 2008, Dzus et al. 2010). A revision of this methodological framework is planned for Year 2 of the CBFA following: completion of methodological frameworks for conservation planning and socio-economic assessments; the collective learning from Phase 1 pilots; and release of the Environment Canada national recovery strategy and its associated science documentation. 2. STRUCTURE For consistency, the following structure will serve as guidance to regional working groups in drafting their CBFA caribou action plans. The following headings are recommended. (Additional detail and a few specific examples are provided in sections that follow.) Goal of Caribou Action Planning Principles for Action Planning Planning Area Include identification of caribou range and forest management unit boundaries. (Differences are outlined below in Sections 2.3 and 3.1.1) Current State of Knowledge of Range (Habitat and Population 2 ) Include identification of best available habitat. Identify the principal land use occupants 3 in the range besides CBFA signatories. Describe monitoring practices in the range. Future Condition of Range (Habitat and Population) Nature of Provincial Government Caribou Conservation Actions in the Range Recommended Management Measures (Habitat and Population) Include a suggested disturbance thresholds approach. Include recommendations for best management practices. Include a suggested adaptive management approach. 2.1 GOAL OF CARIBOU ACTION PLANNING Caribou action plan goals should be directly linked to factors that are affecting the species at-risk designation. The goal of caribou action planning should be to maintain or enhance self-sustaining 4 boreal caribou populations within the plan area. Some provincial recovery plans also include goals relating to habitat. CBFA regional working groups are likewise encouraged to consider including a goal related to habitat, as aspects of habitat conservation are within the management purview of forestry companies, and functional habitat is a prerequisite for self-sustaining populations. Consistency with provincial and federal species at risk legislation should be observed. 2.2 PRINCIPLES FOR ACTION PLANNING Uncertainty, the precautionary principle, and adaptive management need to be addressed by action planning for species at risk across Canada. Our collective understanding of caribou ecology and factors influencing caribou population dynamics has increased substantially in recent decades. However, key uncertainties still exist in our knowledge base and in management strategies for promoting recovery of species at risk. 2 Reference to population in several sections below should include caribou, relevant predators, and other prey identified by the working group as being important in their regional predator-prey system. 3 Regional variation will exist in how this is represented, but should include representation of industrial land users and identification of overlap with the traditional territories of local Aboriginal people. 4 See glossary for definition of self-sustaining populations. CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 2

13 Regional working groups must carefully assess the state of knowledge relative to ecological and land use parameters in their region. Action plans should build upon the strengths of local knowledge and incorporate an adaptive management approach to addressing key uncertainties. On the note of uncertainty, RWGs should not let uncertainty delay action and a precautionary approach should guide decisions when considering options. The following foundational principles provide the basis for caribou action planning: Commitment to caribou action planning: All land users on caribou range, including all affected branches of government, share responsibility for and are committed to the goal of caribou action planning. Commitment and action by all of these parties are critical to achieving the goals of caribou action planning. Cumulative effects management: Maintaining the structure and function of the boreal forest system is essential for the long-term sustainability of boreal caribou and other dependent species. The cumulative effect of all factors impacting boreal caribou, their use of habitats, and their survival must be addressed in action plans. Adaptive management: In the context of uncertainty associated with planning for and implementing caribou conservation actions, adaptive management practices can facilitate learning from the outcomes of previously employed policies and practices. This supports continuous improvement of management policies and practices. The following guiding principles defined by the CBFA are also relevant for regional caribou action planning: 1. Best Available Science: We will base our proposed strategies and outcomes on the best available science and information. 2. Ecologically Effective: In choosing among actions that have equivalent social and economic outcomes, we will select those that are most ecologically effective. 3. Minimize Social and Economic Impacts: In choosing among actions that have equivalent ecological outcomes, we will select those that minimize social and economic impacts first, followed by any disproportionate timber supply effects. 4. Precautionary Approach: We will adopt a precautionary approach, while maintaining a process of active adaptive management. 5. Address Impacts on Wood Supply and Costs: We will minimize, mitigate, or otherwise address the impact of new actions on wood supply and costs. 6. Recognize Changing Forest Health and Protection Circumstances: We will recognize that potential changes in circumstances (due to fire, insect infestation, or disease, for example) may take precedence over our planned actions. 2.3 DEFINITION OF THE PLANNING AREA Environment Canada (2008) defines critical habitat as the resources and environmental conditions required for persistence of local populations of boreal caribou throughout their current distribution in Canada. They further identify the local population range as the relevant spatial scale for the identification of critical habitat that includes the habitat conditions (quantity, quality, and spatial configuration) required by caribou. Given that the CBFA is to be consistent with Environment Canada s draft recovery strategy, the critical habitat science review, and forthcoming products, we recommend using the local population range as the foundation for defining a planning area. Regional variation in caribou ecology as well as socio-political considerations will also need to be factored in when identifying the planning area boundary. CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 3

14 Across Canada s current boreal caribou distribution (extent of occurrence) there are a variety of: a) approaches to defining caribou range within and between jurisdictions; and b) ways in which forest management units (FMUs 5 ) overlap with said caribou ranges. In some areas of Canada, forest management units are large enough, and caribou ranges are defined in such a way that an FMU may encompass one or more entire caribou range. In other areas, there may be one or more FMUs that overlap parts of a given caribou range. Caribou ranges may overlap provincial or territorial boundaries, thus further complicating planning area definitions. Regional working groups will need to define the planning area for their CBFA caribou action plans with due consideration of how range is defined locally and how the range(s) may intersect forest management units. Further guidance on planning area definition is provided in section 3.1 below. 2.4 EXISTING MANAGEMENT POLICIES, STRATEGIES, AND PLANS Policies 6 affecting caribou conservation exist at corporate, provincial, territorial, and national levels. Such polices may affect caribou directly (e.g., hunting regulations) or indirectly (e.g., land use policies) and are often not designed in an integrated and coordinated manner and can conflict with caribou conservation goals as a result. The key challenges to caribou conservation in most parts of Canada arise from the cumulative effects of multiple land uses and, as such, will require policy frameworks that explicitly manage combined causes emanating from multiple actors. Decision-making with a sector- or issue-specific silo mentality has been the norm in most jurisdictions where each department is responsible only for actions within their narrow mandate. Actions directed by policies in one department often contradict the mandate of other departments. Therefore, regional working groups should conduct a policy review to confirm compatibility of management measures recommended in CBFA caribou action plans. Recommended policy changes can then be included in the plans and submitted as advice to the applicable government or corporate body responsible for caribou conservation. The realm of the possible should not be bound by present realities. Regarding forest tenures specifically, RWGs will have to examine overlap of forest management units relative to caribou ranges and prepare management options accordingly. In areas where several forestry companies operate within one caribou range, CBFA regional working groups should consider solutions within and beyond current tenure arrangements. 3. METHODOLOGY Caribou action plans must consider: the habitat that caribou require for all stages of their life history; natural factors that affect caribou reproduction and survival; the influence of anthropogenic land use on caribou habitat suitability, reproduction, and survival; and policies and decision-making processes that affect land use practices and population dynamics. Wherever possible, CBFA caribou action plans should incorporate the data sources and analyses discussed throughout section 3 of this framework to consistently evaluate current and future range condition and limiting factors. The flow chart in Figure 1 depicts the key steps in preparing a caribou action plan. 3.1 CHARACTERIZING RANGE CONDITION (CURRENT AND FUTURE) Range condition analyses represent the first step in the action planning process. They are intended to characterize the current and future mortality risk and habitat suitability (i.e., its quantity, quality, and spatial configuration) of each designated woodland caribou range. Analyses should also identify areas of best available habitat as priorities for conservation, restoration, and management. Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping and analytical tools (such as ArcGIS or ArcInfo) will be needed to collate data into a common file for analysis. CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 4 5 Forest management unit (FMU) is used generically in this document to refer to the area of land under tenure to a company in a contiguous geographic area. It is recognized that in some jurisdictions (e.g., Alberta) a FMU is more geographically limited and that several FMUs constitute a single tenure. 6 The term policy is used here generically and relates to treaties, laws, acts, policies, regulations, etc.

15 Figure 1. CBFA caribou regional action planning flow chart CBFA Regional Caribou Action Planning 1. Characterize Range Condition (Habitat and Population) Traditional Aboriginal and Local Knowledge Habitat Suitability, Unique Features, Critical Habitat Population Trends, Mortality Risk Tenures/Admin Units Functional Habitat Other Risk Factors Current Condition Define Planning Area Future Condition Delineate Best Available Habitat Habitat Scenario Simulations -Disturbance - Land-use Mortality Risk Scenario Simulations - Predators and other prey - Harvest - Direct mortality Climate Change Scenario Simulations? 2. Define Management Measures 2a. Apply Disturbance Threshold(s) Set Planning Area Population Objective(s)using population size, trend, and habitat condition Define Minimum Caribou Conservation Zone (Functional Habitat) Size Identify Candidate Caribou Conservation Zone Area(s) from Best Available Habitat Consider Protected Area Synergies/Trade-offs Develop Candidate Zone and Planning Area Risk-based Disturbance Threshold(s ) 2b. Recommended Management Measures Describe Integrated Land Management System Option(s) Best Management Practices Adaptive Management Measures Roles and Responsibilities Evaluate Existing Plans/Policies/Challenges Tenure specific guidance Land-use and Socio- Economic Trade-off Scenario Evaluations CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 5

16 3.1.1 Range Delineation To properly describe current habitat condition, CBFA caribou action plans should begin with government-designated ranges. Designated ranges include a spectrum from large, continuous areas with variable or undocumented caribou use (as in northern Ontario), to discrete polygons delineated by suitable habitat and documented use (e.g., Alberta ranges of less than 3,000 km2). Guidance for these two types of herd is provided below, but in all cases, the planning area should be large enough to incorporate: a sustainable caribou population. Environment Canada (2008) defines a minimum viable population as greater than 300 animals. Setting a different minimum population target may result in a lower or higher risk of persistence. both direct and indirect predation risk. The inclusion of indirect risk emphasizes that landscape conditions in habitat not used by caribou (including buffer areas described in small discrete ranges below) may affect predator abundance, and that these predators can move into caribou range or calving areas, thereby increasing predation risk (James et al. 2004; Culling et al. 2006; Latham 2009) Large Continuous Range In the case of a large, continuous range, each planning area should minimally include the habitat necessary for a self-sustaining caribou population and include all existing range when planning areas are combined. Local caribou populations within continuous habitat can be delineated using movement or survey data where these exist (Schaefer et al. 2001; Courtois et al. 2007; Environment Canada 2008). In the absence of these data, a conservative regional caribou density estimate can be applied to define planning area size. (For example, a density of 1-3 individuals per 100 km2 gives a planning area of 10,000 to 30,000 km2.) Planning area boundaries can then be chosen to reflect physical features that deter movement (such as rivers, or large patches of unsuitable habitat); indirect predation risk; habitat similarity, critical or unique features; local and traditional knowledge; natural disturbance regimes; and ecological and administrative boundaries. Regional working groups should also reference critical habitat guidance being developed by Environment Canada when it becomes available Small Discrete Range The planning area for small, discrete ranges will frequently need to be expanded to accommodate a sustainable caribou population, factoring in indirect predation risk. This may include several small ranges plus the intervening matrix, or an adjacent buffer area intended to reflect indirect predation risk (Figure 2). Buffer widths of km have been used in previous analyses (Antoniuk et al. 2007; ALT 2009); however because of variability in life history characteristics of wolves and bears across the boreal range, it is more appropriate to define buffer widths based on telemetry data from predators within or closest to the planning area (e.g., Culling et al. 2006; Brodeur et al. 2008, Courbin et al. 2009; Bastille- Rousseau et al. 2010). Where predator telemetry data are not available and designated caribou range boundaries have been defined only by suitable habitat or documented use, a conservative buffer width of 100 km is suggested. This will bring in appropriate consideration of predation risk based on wolves and bears with large home ranges, which is consistent with a precautionary approach. CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 6

17 Figure 2. Caribou action planning area incorporating designated range plus buffer to reflect predation risk Although the planning area boundaries of CBFA caribou action plans should relate as much as possible to ecological boundaries within the region or planning area, there may be occasion to adjust these to administrative boundaries when they affect both the assessment of range condition and implementation of management actions. As an example, a recent caribou conservation planning effort in Alberta stopped at the Alberta-Saskatchewan border even though some caribou populations are shared with Saskatchewan (ALT 2009) Habitat Suitability and Mortality Risk Inputs Comprehensive, up-to-date data sets will not be available for some parts of the boreal forest, so best available information should be obtained and collated to define current and future mortality risk and habitat suitability. Recommended data sources are summarized in Appendices 2 and 3. Primary sources of data will include forest tenure holders, government wildlife and land managers, government and private geomatics groups, traditional ecological knowledge holders, and caribou researchers. Key parameters to consider include: the land cover classification scheme, accuracy and coverage; attributes assigned to land use and landscape features; and consistency of coverage across the planning area. Data on land use feature width or area are not always available; where this is the case, average size estimates will need to be applied in the GIS. Caribou action plans should reflect the state of knowledge where they are being prepared. As there is considerable variation across regions, working groups will need to consider the guidance and criteria discussed below (e.g., age or forest seral stage cut-offs), and adopt or modify them as appropriate to best reflect their planning area and available data. Management recommendations should be more precautionary where there is more uncertainty, and in these instances, the use of an adaptive management framework should be emphasized (see section 3.2.3). CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 7

18 Current Range Condition The current range condition evaluation should summarize information in graphic and written form to provide an assessment of current caribou populations, habitat suitability, mortality risk, and other factors that may affect caribou in the planning area. Current range condition assessments should include: 1. Estimates of either boreal caribou population size and/or population trend (e.g., lambda over at least 3 years), distribution and any areas/features that are disproportionately important for caribou (e.g., discrete calving areas, refuge habitat 7, other concentration areas, movement corridors, and elevated road kill areas). 2. A spectrum of caribou habitat suitability as defined by local habitat use relationships. If such studies are not available, groups can use the following as guidance: suitable habitat includes lichen biomass that is within the natural variability of a mature conifer stand 8 (e.g., >40-50 year old forested peatlands (closed and open black spruce) (Dunford et al. 2006); > 80 year old upland pine forest (Coxson and Marsh 2001); and >125 year old spruce forest (Morneau and Payette 1989; Lesmerises et al. 2011)); unsuitable includes existing burnt/disturbed areas (e.g., < years to reflect regional variation noted above, displayed by age class). 3. Predator distribution and density, where available. 4. Other prey (e.g., moose, white-tailed deer, beaver, etc.) distribution and density, where available. 5. Critical habitat defined in accordance with federal, provincial, and territorial species at risk legislation. 6. Land use intensity, including: forest harvest blocks (e.g., those <50 years old 9 ); facilities; mines; communities, residences, and cabins; linear corridors, in block roads and trails; reservoirs; other clearings; and industrial and recreational features. 7. Existing tenures and administrative/planning units that affect land use patterns and management actions. Regional working groups will need to rely on readily available data and local and traditional knowledge for much of this information (e.g., government and research biologists, forest operators, Aboriginal groups). Suggested data sources for assessing current range condition are summarized in Appendix 2. Where caribou monitoring data do not exist, current population trends can be inferred from empirically-based disturbance-population relationships. These relationships provide information on general trends (decline vs. growth) rather than actual demography (Sleep and Loehle 2010), but they provide another line of evidence to describe current range condition. A detailed comparison of disturbance-population relationships is beyond the scope of this framework, but the following general guidance is provided. 7 Refuge habitat includes large lakes with islands or uplands surrounded by lakes and bogs that give caribou a competitive advantage over wolves and other predators. 8 This is mainly pine forest in western boreal regions, but includes pine, spruce and fir forest in eastern boreal regions. 9 Relatively recent timber harvest areas and burns (young forest) contribute to indirect mortality risk because they provide suitable habitat for moose, deer, and other prey. Young forest has been defined as <30 years old (ALT 2009; Schneider et al. 2010) to <50 years old (Environment Canada 2009; Sorensen et al. 2008). Regional working groups should select an age most appropriate to their study area. CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 8

19 The spatially explicit Environment Canada (2008) relationship incorporating fire and buffered anthropogenic disturbance was developed with data from across Canada and is generally applicable to ranges in the boreal forest 10. The Sorensen et al. (2008) equation and a recent update by Schneider et al. (2010) were developed with data from a relatively small number of moderate to very highly disturbed ranges in Alberta. The Alberta range-scale relationships also incorporate fire and anthropogenic disturbance but used different methodologies and do not account for any overlap between the two forms of disturbance; they are most relevant to developed multi-use areas in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (in northern Alberta and British Columbia). Environment Canada is also conducting supplementary national analyses that should be released in 2011, so regional working groups should consider all options and select the most appropriate relationship for their planning area or compare trends derived from each relationship. The discussion of current range condition should identify key relationships, important areas, and any factors known or suspected to increase risk to boreal caribou population sustainability. This should include factors related to: low population size (e.g., relative to the minimum viable population of 300 identified by Environment Canada 2008); current predator density and caribou mortality rate; existing land use; legal or illegal harvest; other mortality sources; natural disturbance rate; habitat quantity, quality and spatial configuration; and underlying assumptions of management actions. Throughout this methodological framework, functional habitat, is defined as caribou habitat that is sufficiently old to provide winter forage 11, has comparatively small areas of young forest 12 and anthropogenic footprint (i.e., corridors and clearings), and is of sufficient size 13 to provide individual caribou with opportunities to space away from predators. (See also McCutchen et al ) Future Range Condition Effective caribou action plans require a future-oriented outlook that combines our current scientific understanding with plausible scenarios of landscape change. The primary concerns for caribou management are whether combined range disturbance is expected to increase or decrease relative to current conditions over the next 50 to 100 years, and whether habitat restoration mechanisms are likely to be effective over time. Other issues are the anticipated trends in disturbance (including by other tenure holders), and where increased risk is most likely to occur. Thus, scenario analysis is a key methodology for caribou action planning. Scenarios are plausible, but structurally different descriptions of how the future might unfold (Duinker and Greig 2007; Mahmoud et al. 2009). Computer-based scenario simulations can be used to assess the influence of assumptions or management approaches under changing landscape conditions, and to explore alternative strategies and key uncertainties for mitigating cumulative effects (Schneider et al. 2003; Francis and Hamm 2009). Dynamic landscape models also help synthesize our current understanding and hypotheses into a predictive framework that supports decision making; this is also an important part of adaptive management (see section 3.2.3). 10 The Environment Canada (2008) disturbance-recruitment relationship appears to underestimate recruitment for some Quebec and NWT ranges and overestimates recruitment for several ranges (Quebec and British Columbia). Implications should be acknowledged in caribou action plans. 11 As defined by each regional working group using the criteria provided earlier in section As defined by each regional working group using the criteria provided earlier in section As defined by each regional working group. Areas less than 50 km2 do not appear to be sufficiently large to sustain caribou over the long-term (Culling et al. 2006; O'Brien et al. 2006); available research indicates that larger undisturbed areas provide more opportunity for caribou to reduce overlap with predators. CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 9

20 As shown in Figure 2, habitat scenario simulations, also known as dynamic landscape modeling, should be used to forecast future conditions resulting from all land uses, natural disturbance, and apparent competition. This requires information on: natural disturbance regimes; plausible land use scenarios that capture probable and possible activities of the forest, mining, energy (oil/gas/hydro/nuclear), transportation, residential, and recreational sectors; forecast changes in predator and other prey abundance (i.e., mortality risk information); and the possible influence of climate change (Schneider et al. 2009). It is particularly important to evaluate interactions of limiting and regulating factors (Thomas 1992). Suggested data sources for assessing future range condition are summarized in Appendix 3. The disturbance-population relationship developed by Environment Canada (2008) is limited in its ability to simulate future conditions. It requires spatially explicit analyses on the overlap between natural and man-made disturbances, and this cannot be meaningfully projected into the future 14. Regional working groups may want to consider applying the Sorensen et al. (2008) relationship and its more recent revision (Schneider et al. 2010), as they do not rely on spatially explicit analyses to forecast future population trends and mortality risk. Ecosystem resilience refers to the ability of a system, community, or species to absorb natural and industrial disturbance without altering its fundamental structure and stability (Holling 1973; Gunderson 2000; Weaver et al. 1996). A concern with sensitive species such as boreal caribou that have low resilience is the potential for system shifts resulting from combined anthropogenic and natural disturbances. Climate change and expansion of white-tailed deer and other predators could push the existing moose-caribou-predator system into new and possibly irreversible domains (ALT 2009; Schneider et al. 2009, 2010). Information on natural disturbance rates, predator/prey expansion, and possible climate change implications should be drawn from best available sources (such as regional climate change forecasts from Canadian Climate Impacts and Scenarios 15 ; the Canadian Climate Change Scenarios Network 16 ; and the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium 17 ). RWGs should consider the environmental niche analysis included in Environment Canada (2008) and may choose to include specific scenarios that relate to climate change as part of their future range condition evaluation. Recommended management measures (see section 3.2 below) should also reflect the potential impacts of climate change if they are deemed to be significant for a given region. Finally, regional caribou action plans should also consider uncertainty associated with restoring functional habitat in anthropogenically disturbed boreal forest. Habitat recovery will require at least 40 years (Schaefer and Pruitt 1991; Bradshaw et al. 1995; Dunford et al. 2006; ALT 2009). Since industrial forestry on the scale of current operations has not extended longer than 40 years in most jurisdictions, the feasibility of restoring functional habitat has not yet been documented. This uncertainty reinforces the importance of delineating and conserving best available habitat as the foundation of management recommendations. 14 Environment Canada's supplementary national analyses will include aspatial projections and, if available, these should be considered for future range condition analyses by regional working groups CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 10

21 Delineating Best Available Habitat A common conclusion from virtually all boreal caribou studies is that large areas of continuous caribou habitat are preferred to a fragmented distribution of habitat patches (e.g., Smith et al. 2000; Schaefer 2003; O Brien et al. 2006; Courtois et al. 2008; Fortin et al. 2008). Ultimately, caribou population size and management effectiveness is related to the amount of functional habitat. Long-term suitability for caribou persistence is enhanced in areas that have the following attributes: larger, more continuous habitat; less human footprint; lower perimeter to area ratio; and further from predator source habitat. Best available habitat is considered to consist of an area of suitable habitat (as defined by regional working groups for current range condition) that is: currently undisturbed or functional 18 ; disproportionately important for caribou (e.g., discrete calving areas, refuge habitat 19, other concentration areas, movement corridors, and other sites or areas identified by the regional working group); and structurally and functionally connected with other areas of suitable habitat (i.e., inter-patch movement at this distance has been documented, with higher frequency movements assumed to represent higher connectivity; the intervening matrix has low mortality risk [Haynes and Cronin 2004]; no known barriers to movement exist; the size of the two patches improves connectivity potential [O Brien et al. 2006]; and connectivity potential is inversely related to range fragmentation [O Brien et al. 2006]). Such areas of best available habitat should form the foundation for self-sustaining caribou populations in action plans (see section 3.2.1). In some ranges, large functional or connected areas no longer exist, so the largest relatively undisturbed areas should be identified as best available habitat. Habitat restoration will be critical in such degraded ranges and predator and other prey control will likely be needed in and around such ranges to allow caribou populations to persist while habitat recovery is underway Other Risk Factors Other direct and indirect risk factors should be considered and discussed to make action plans comprehensive and transparent (Figure 2) and to translate ecologically-based delineation of best available habitat into delineation of best conservation opportunities. The factors listed below should be considered for identifying best conservation opportunities given the regional working group s understanding of future conditions and external influences on the planning area: the condition of adjacent caribou ranges as potential sources of immigration or enhanced risk (i.e., isolated ranges within a highly disturbed matrix have increased risk); the location of the range relative to the southern boreal caribou distribution boundary (where closer equals higher risk of apparent competition, habitat loss, and climate-change related effects, and reduced ecosystem resilience); the current knowledge base and monitoring (i.e., nonexistent or old data may delay implementation and increase the risk of extirpation); tenures and boundaries that influence the condition of caribou range and any land use scenarios considered in future range condition analyses; and current and proposed management actions. Note that a focus only on best practices and habitat management will not always directly address predation risk, particularly in declining caribou populations; predator population management measures should be considered by the RWGs under such circumstances. 18 See description in section and McCutchen et al. (2009). CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM Refuge habitat includes large lakes with islands or uplands surrounded by lakes and bogs that give caribou a competitive advantage over wolves and other predators.

22 3.2 DEFINING MANAGEMENT MEASURES CBFA caribou action plans should include measurable criteria and objectives linked to principles described earlier in section 2.2. Including objectives that are SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound) will provide a foundation to track implementation success and apply adaptive management (see section 3.2.3) Applying Disturbance Thresholds It is clear that planning and mitigation of activities at local project scales has not successfully maintained caribou in many regions of Canada. Objectives-based cumulative effects management is well established for air and water quality, but represents a new, innovative, and often contentious approach to integrated land management. With this approach, limits on land use-based impacts help to sustain or restore desired landscape conditions while still allowing economic and social objectives to be met. Explicit regional or sub-regional objectives, frequently called targets or thresholds, can be used to inform decision-making on the regulation and assessment of individual activities or projects (Kennett 2006; Salmo Consulting Inc. 2006; Antoniuk et al. 2009). Total disturbance is a more robust predictor of the ability of a given range to support a sustainable caribou population than is the amount of suitable habitat alone (Environment Canada 2008; Sorensen et al. 2008; ALT 2009; Dzus et al. 2010; Schneider et al. 2010). Disturbance thresholds thereby provide a tool to identify how much cumulative human disturbance poses a socially unacceptable risk to the persistence of a caribou population. Because boreal caribou appear to be among the most sensitive species to disturbance, caribou disturbance thresholds may also be valuable as a precautionary approach to biodiversity maintenance in Canada s boreal forest. While the probability of caribou persistence is inversely related to combined disturbance (i.e., natural and anthropogenic), there appears to be no absolute value that differentiates sustainable and unsustainable conditions across the boreal forest. Caribou disturbance thresholds must therefore be risk-based and reflect both current range conditions and anticipated future trends over at least 40 years. This reflects the minimum time needed to restore the direct and indirect effects of disturbed habitat (Vors et al. 2007; ALT 2009). The CBFA mandates delineation of disturbance thresholds for the management of critical habitat for caribou (CBFA Decision Note Goal 3, May 2010). However, regional working groups should acknowledge that the disturbance threshold approach has high uncertainty and adopt a logical and transparent approach when developing their recommendations. Inherent uncertainty has most frequently been addressed by building in a safety margin when establishing thresholds (Bull 1991, 1992). The ultimate challenge for action plans is to identify an acceptable level of risk to caribou in each planning area to maintain or enhance the probability of self-sustaining - and ideally resilient - local populations while enabling economic and social demands for forest products and other resources. The planning flow chart (Figure 1) proposes an iterative process with science-based recommendations evaluated against desired social, economic, and political outcomes. While the ultimate responsibility lies with governments to manage cumulative disturbances with multiple industries on the same land base, CBFA caribou action plans can propose disturbance thresholds for areas or footprints within their sphere of influence. They thereby demonstrate that forestry s influence on the risk of caribou extirpation will be kept as low as possible at any point in time and space. While there is no standardized approach to disturbance threshold development, various approaches for planning areas in both large continuous ranges and small discrete ranges are introduced below. Decision-making systems must be sufficiently flexible to manage on the basis of risk rather than absolute thresholds, and to be able to adapt in response to new information (Dzus et al. 2010). Because there are significant uncertainties surrounding the threshold approach to caribou management, it is strongly recommended that a series of long-term studies and monitoring protocols be established to reduce the uncertainty surrounding this potentially valuable management tool. (See preamble and section ) CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 12

23 The most practical and effective approach to achieving caribou conservation and economic values is to link disturbance thresholds to land management zones defined by the principles identified in this framework. This integrated land management system should be designed to maintain high quality, older conifer-lichen forests in a pattern that minimizes mortality risk by allowing caribou to avoid predators and human activity through spatial separation (Smith et al. 2000; O Brien et al. 2006; ALT 2009; Courbin et al. 2009). A zonation approach also provides regional working groups with a good opportunity to explicitly consider linkages and gaps with protected area planning efforts, as shown in Figure 1. Regional working groups should refer to threshold guidance being developed by Environment Canada, other references on integrated threshold management systems (AENV and CASA 1999; see also caribou discussion in Antoniuk et al. 2009), and knowledgeable regional experts. The CBFA Science Committee and National Working Group for Goals 2 and 3 are encouraged to refine the disturbance threshold approach using expert workshops. This framework introduces three integrated zonation-threshold options for consideration by regional working groups. Selection of the most appropriate integrated land management option will depend on a variety of ecological and socio-economic factors in a given planning area. (See also the preamble to this methodological framework.) Table 1 briefly describes each option, notes its relevance to large continuous and small discrete ranges, and summarizes advantages and disadvantages of each option relative to risk of caribou decline, resilience to natural disturbance, ease of implementation, and need for long-term spatial planning. Figures 3 through 5 provide conceptual schematics of each option. Appendix 5 provides additional information and discusses examples relevant to both large continuous and small discrete or disturbed ranges. It includes a more detailed version of Table 1 that was used to prepare the summary presented here. As noted previously, a common conclusion from virtually all boreal caribou studies is that large areas of continuous caribou habitat are preferred to fragmented patches of habitat (e.g., Smith et al. 2000; Schaefer 2003; O Brien et al. 2006; Courtois et al. 2008; Fortin et al. 2008). All available evidence therefore suggests that the lowest risk option for maintaining local caribou populations is to concentrate land use into a development zone and separate these areas as far as possible from large, undisturbed caribou conservation zones (Courtois et al. 2004; Courbin et al. 2009) for 80 years or more. As discussed below and in Appendix 5, a single range-wide threshold provides the least flexibility, with multi-zone options offering the most flexibility, in this regard. The following basic steps, applicable to all land management system options, are shown in Figure 1 and described in more detail in Appendix 5: 1. Establish a risk-based local population objective. 2. Identify the minimum area of functional habitat required for a self-sustaining caribou population in a caribou conservation zone (two- and three-zone options only 20 ). 3. Select one or more areas of best available habitat to provide minimum functional habitat area in a caribou conservation zone; provide all requirements for a self-sustaining local caribou population; and reflect current caribou distribution (twoand three-zone options only). 4. Establish risk-based disturbance thresholds for each zone. 5. Describe the proposed integrated land management system option(s) for further socio-economic trade-off evaluation. 20 The one-zone option provides a working landscape in which both conservation and economic outcomes are achieved, without specifically identifying functional habitat areas for conservation-specific management. Instead, suitable caribou habitat is provided at the zone scale, but the location of these areas changes over time (e.g., Armstrong 1998). CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 13

24 21 Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of one-, two-, and three-zone integrated land management systems 21 System Description Large, Continuous Range Small Discrete Range Risk of Caribou Decline Resilience to Natural Disturbance Ease of Design/ Implementation One-Zone Single multi-use zone managed for both industrial activity and cariobu conservation (Figure 3) X Highest Lowest Easiest Two-Zone Caribou conservation zone managed to achieve a self-sustaining caribou population. Dvelopment zone managed to achieve economic benefits from industrial development (Figure 4) X X Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Three-zone As per two zone, but with a special management zone managed as a restricted development buffer to reduce predation/mortality risk within the conservation zone or improve connectivity between two conservation zone areas (Figure 5) X X Lowest Highest Most Difficult Advantages and disadvantages are further elaborated upon in Appendix 5. Description Reliance on Long- Term Spatial Planning/ Management Highest Intermediate Lowest CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 14

25 Figure 3. Conceptual schematic of one-zone management system White boxes represent cutblock-road system. Figure 4. Conceptual schematics of two-zone management systems A) B) Figure 5. Conceptual schematic of three-zone management system CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 15

26 Next Steps The regional working group should describe one or more recommended disturbance threshold options as part of the caribou action plan management measures section. A socio-economic evaluation of the candidate zone and range disturbance threshold option(s) will then be conducted. (See the preamble to this framework and Figures 1 and 2.) This will allow trade-offs between caribou extirpation risk and socioeconomic values to be explicitly evaluated and discussed among CBFA signatories prior to making final recommendations Best Management Practices CBFA regional working groups should include a discussion of best management practices for caribou conservation. Such best practices are frequently referenced in caribou conservation planning documents (e.g., ALT 2009) or are identified as strategies to be developed and implemented as part of provincial caribou conservation plans (e.g., OMNR 2009, Pg. 16). Dzus et al. (2010, section 6) also provide guidance on sciencebased conservation measures. In a recent Forest Product Association of Canada (FPAC)-sponsored report it was noted that there has been no formal monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of these (mitigation) measures in terms of their value for achieving caribou recovery goals (FPAC 2008). Despite this lack of effectiveness evaluation, the FPAC report and a Golder (2009) habitat restoration report rank operating practices on their perceived effectiveness. Regional working groups should review national and regional/ provincial documentation relating to best management practises when developing their CBFA caribou action plans and concentrate on those practices rated as being highly effective. Where possible, experimental designs should be set up to test, learn from, and document the effectiveness of such practices. (See suggested adaptive management measures below.) Consideration should be given to practices that influence both habitat suitability and mortality risk. Including implementation and effectiveness monitoring programs will increase the likelihood that management practices are systematically evaluated as part of an adaptive management system Adaptive Management Measures The CBFA embraces active adaptive management in concert with the precautionary approach as foundational to achieving high degrees of social and economic prosperity and ecological integrity concurrently (CBFA, P. 8 #10). The CBFA defines Active adaptive management as involving an explicit recognition of uncertainty about the outcome of some management activities and the need to learn by doing that includes careful observation of the effects to guide change over time. In most cases, this would involve (a) testing alternative management in a controlled environment; (b) monitoring the alternative practices against both conventional practices and a natural condition baseline; (c) analyzing results against stated performance objectives and documenting unexpected ancillary effects; and (d) deciding whether to adapt - adaptation occurs upon reasonable indication of performance against the objectives where there are no unexpected ancillary effects, or when any encountered are documented and deemed acceptable (CBFA Signatories 2010, p. 4). In a recent report to the Forest Stewardship Council (Canada), Dzus et al. (2010) note that in some instances active adaptive management may be impractical, and passive adaptive management should be pursued when there is a real possibility of learning by doing. As noted by Dzus et al. (2010), (T)here are several hurdles to deal with in attempting (active) adaptive management for boreal caribou: there are many inter-related factors affecting caribou ( ) necessitating experimental management designs that have the capacity to incorporate uncertainty associated with such factors; response times are likely to be relatively long and so the impact of a management regime will not be fully apparent for many years (perhaps decades) after its implementation; CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 16

27 experimental management is costly, in terms of the manipulation of management practices and the equipment and effort needed to detect caribou responses; and the potential for unforeseen complications is large (e.g., logistical difficulties in carrying out prescriptions, changing regulatory regimes, and unpredictable market forces). That said, the CBFA is in a unique position to actually apply active adaptive management experiments at the regional, and potentially national, scale. Different management applications could be applied to different ranges, with the CBFA Goal 2 and 3 National Working Group serving as a coordinating body. Such an approach would obviously require coordination and collaboration with a wide variety of other organizations. Johnson (1999) and Schreiber et al (2004) provide excellent reviews of adaptive management and are recommended reading for regional working groups. 4. SUMMARY The Methodological Framework for Caribou Action Planning is a guiding document for Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement) regional working group members and supporting planning practitioners. The framework was developed to help CBFA caribou action plans meet a consistent and high standard of quality and completeness. It recommends the following steps be incorporated into boreal caribou management plans. 1. Include an explicit action planning goal and defining principles. 2. Use designated local population range(s) as the foundation for defining a planning area to be consistent with federal critical habitat guidance. Buffers to address predation risk from surrounding areas should be included; this may require evaluation of data from adjacent tenures and jurisdictions. 3. Evaluate existing government management and recovery plans using the evaluation tool included in Appendix Identify ecologically unique and significant features; critical habitat defined in accordance with species at risk legislation; and predator and other prey distribution and abundance. 5. Obtain and consider comprehensive data on the influence of natural disturbance, all land uses, and current management policies on current mortality risk and habitat suitability (its quantity, quality, and spatial configuration). Potential data sources are summarized in Appendix Apply dynamic landscape models to evaluate the influence of plausible natural disturbance, all land uses, and climate change scenarios on future mortality risk and habitat suitability. Potential data sources are summarized in Appendix Identify best available habitat using the criteria provided above in Section Apply a disturbance threshold approach, considering the linked zone-total disturbance threshold integrated land management concepts and approaches provided in the framework (Appendix 5). 9. Include recommendations for integrated land management system options and best management practices. 10. Include adaptive management provisions. 11. Identify implementation roles and responsibilities. CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 17

28 5. REFERENCES AENV (Alberta Environment) and CASA (Clean Air Strategic Alliance) Application of critical, target, and monitoring loads for the evaluation and management of acid deposition. Prepared by Clean Air Strategic Alliance, Target Loading Subgroup, Alberta Environment, Edmonton. Publication No. T/472. ALT (Athabasca Landscape Team) Athabasca caribou landscape management options report. Alberta Caribou Committee, Edmonton, AB. Available online at: Alberta Woodland Caribou Recovery Team Alberta woodland caribou recovery plan 2004/ /14. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 4. Edmonton, AB. 48 pp. Available online by searching for: ISBN: (Online Edition) Antoniuk, T., T. Raabis, B. Culling, D. Culling, and A. Creagh Snake-Sahtaneh Boreal Caribou Study: Cumulative Effect Component. Prepared for Science and Community Environmental Knowledge Fund, Victoria, BC by Salmo Consulting Inc., Boreal Enterprises, Diversified Environmental Services, and Tera Environmental Consultants. Antoniuk, T., S. Kennett, C. Aumann, M. Weber, S. Davis Schuetz, R. McManus, K. McKinnon, and K. Manuel Valued Component Thresholds (Management Objectives) Project. Prepared for Environmental Studies Research Funds by Salmo Consulting Inc., Pembina Institute, Alberta Research Council, and Fulcrum Strategic Consulting. ESRF Report No Available online at: Armstrong, E.R Integration of woodland caribou habitat management and forest management in northern Ontario - current status and issues. Rangifer Special Issue No. 10: Bastille-Rousseau, G., D. Fortin, and C. Dussault Inference from habitat selection analysis depends on foraging strategies. Journal of Animal Ecology. 79: Bentham, P Audit of operating practices and mitigation measures employed within woodland caribou ranges. Prepared for: Caribou Landscape Management Association and the Forest Products Association of Canada by Golder Associates, Edmonton, AB. Bergerud, A.T., R.D. Jakimchuk, and D.R. Carruthers The buffalo of the North: caribou (Rangifer tarandus) and human developments. Arctic. 37: Bradshaw, C. J. A., Hebert, D. M., Rippin, B. A., and S. Boutin Winter peatland habitat selection by woodland caribou in northeastern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 73: Brodeur, V., J-P. Ouellet, R. Courtois, and D. Fortin Habitat selection by black bears in an intensively logged forest. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 86(11): Bull, K.R The critical loads/levels approach to gaseous pollutant emission control. Environmental Pollution. 69: Bull, K.R An introduction to critical loads. Environmental Pollution. 77: CBFA Signatories The Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement: An Historic Agreement Signifying a New Era of Joint Leadership in the Boreal Forest. Available online at: Courbin, N., D. Fortin, C. Dussault, and R. Courtois Landscape management for woodland caribou: the protection of forest blocks influences wolf-caribou co-occurrence. Landscape Ecology. 24: Courtois, R., J-P. Ouellet, C. Dussault, and A. Gingras Forest management guidelines for forest-dwelling caribou in Quebec. Forestry Chronicle. 80, Courtois, R., A. Gingras, D. Fortin, A. Sebbane, B. Rochette, and L. Breton Demographic and behavioural response of woodland caribou to forest harvesting. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 38: Coxson, D.S., and J. Marsh Lichen chronosequences (post-fire and post-harvest) in lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) forest of northern interior British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Botany. 79: CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 18

29 Culling, D.E., B.A. Culling, T.J. Raabis, and A.C. Creagh Ecology and seasonal habitat selection of boreal caribou in the Snake- Sathaneh watershed, British Columbia 2000 to Prepared for Canadian Forest Products Ltd., Fort Nelson, British Columbia. DeCesare, N.J., M. Hebblewhite, H.S. Robinson, and M. Musiani Endangered, apparently: the role of apparent competition in endangered species management. Animal Conservation. 13: Duinker, P.N. and L.A. Greig Scenario analysis in environmental impact assessment: improving explorations of the future. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 27: Dunford, J.S., P.D. McLoughlin, F. Dalerum, and S. Boutin Lichen abundance in the peatlands of northern Alberta: implications for boreal caribou. Ecoscience. 13: Dzus, E., J. Ray, I. Thompson, and C. Wedeles Caribou and the National Boreal Standard: report of the FSC science panel. Prepared for the Forest Stewardship Council (Canada). Available online at: fscsciencepanel_recommendationsreport_final.pdf Environment Canada Scientific Review for the Identification of Critical Habitat for Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population in Canada, August Environment Canada. Fahrig, L How much habitat is enough? Biological Conservation. 100: Faille, G., C. Dussault, J-P. Oullet, D. Fortin, R. Courtois, M-H. St-Laurent and C. Dussault Range fidelity: the missing link between caribou decline and habitat alteration. Biological Conservation. 143: Fortin, D., R. Courtois, P. Etcheverry, C. Dussault, and A. Gingras Winter selection of landscapes by woodland caribou: behavioural response to geographical gradients in habitat attributes. Journal of Applied Ecology. 45: FPAC (Forest Product Association of Canada) Woodland caribou recovery: audit of operating practices and mitigation measures employed within woodland caribou ranges. Ottawa, ON. 12 Pp. Available online at: publications2/publication-viewer/woodland-caribou-recovery/ Francis, S., and J. Hamm North Yukon Planning Region Land Use Scenarios Report, ALCES Land Use Modelling Results for the North Yukon Planning Region. Prepared for the North Yukon Planning Commission. Available online at: index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=102&itemid=338 Golder (Golder Associates Ltd.) Caribou Habitat Restoration Pilot Study. Submitted to: ConocoPhillips Canada, Suncor Energy, and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. Gurd, D.B., T. Nudds, and Rivard, D.H Conservation of mammals in Eastern North American wildlife reserves: how small is too small? Conservation Biology. 15: Gunderson, L.H Ecological resilience in theory and application. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 31: Hatter, I.W., and W.A. Bergerud Moose recruitment, adult mortality and rate of change. Alces. 27: Haynes, K.J., and J.T. Cronin Confounding of patch quality and matrix effects in herbivore movement studies. Landscape Ecology. 19: Holling, C. S Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 4: Houle, M., D. Fortin, C. Dussault, R. Courtois, and J-P Ouellet Cumulative effects of forestry on habitat use by gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the boreal forest. Landscape Ecology. 25: James, A.R.C., S. Boutin, D.M. Hebert, and A.B. Rippin Spatial separation of caribou from moose and its relation to predation by wolves. Journal of Wildlife Management. 68: Johnson, B. L The role of adaptive management as an operational approach for resource management agencies. Conservation Ecology. 3(2): 8. Available online at: CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 19

30 Kennett, S From science-based thresholds to regulatory limits: implementation issues for cumulative effects management. Prepared for Environment Canada, Northern Division, by Canadian Institute of Resources Law, Calgary. Available online at: Latham, A.D.M Wolf ecology and caribou-primary prey-wolf spatial relationships in low productivity peatland complexes in northeastern Alberta. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta. Lee, P., M. Hanneman, J. Gysbers, R. Cheng, and W. Smith Atlas of Canada s intact forest landscapes. Available online at: Lesmerises, R., J-P. Ouellet and M-H. St-Laurent Assessing terrestrial lichen biomass using ecoforest maps: a suitable approach to plan conservation areas for forest-dwelling caribou. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 41: Mahmoud M., Y. Liu, H. Hartmann, S. Stewart, T. Wagener, D. Semmens, R. Stewart, H. Gupta, D. Dominguez, F. Dominguez, D. Hulse, R. Letcher, B. Rashleigh, C. Smith, R. Street, J. Ticehurst, M. Twery, H. van Delden, R. Waldick, and D. White A formal framework for scenario development in support of environmental decision-making. Environmental Modeling and Software. 24: Manitoba Conservation Manitoba s conservation and recovery strategy for boreal woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou). Winnipeg, MB. 22 pp. Available online at: McCutchen, N., S. Boutin, E. Dzus, D. Hervieux, L. Morgantini, A. Saxena, K. Smith, D. Stepnisky, and C. Wallis Identifying intactness priority zones within woodland caribou ranges. Prepared and endorsed by the Alberta Caribou Committee Research and Monitoring Subcommittee. Metsaranta, J.M Assessing the length of the post-disturbance recovery period for woodland caribou habitat after fire and logging in west-central Manitoba. Rangifer Special Issue No. 17: Morneau, C., and S. Payette Postfire lichen-spruce woodland recovery at the limit of the boreal forest in northern Quebec. Canadian Journal of Botany. 67: NYPC (North Yukon Planning Commission) Final recommended North Yukon Land Use Plan. Available online at: planyukon.ca/index.php/documents/cat_view/79-commission-documents/81-north-yukon-planning-commission-documents/110- final-plan.html O Brien, D., M. Manseau, A.Fall, and M.-J. Fortin Testing the importance of spatial configuration of winter habitat for woodland caribou: an application of graph theory. Biological Conservation. 130: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Ontario s woodland caribou conservation plan. 28 pp. Available online by searching for: ISBN Salmo Consulting Inc Developing and implementing thresholds in the Northwest Territories - a discussion paper. Prepared for Environment Canada, Northern Division by Salmo Consulting Inc., Calgary. Available online at: Reference_ThresholdWorkshop.htm Schaefer, J.A Long-term range recession and the persistence of caribou in the taiga. Conservation Biology. 17: Schaefer, J.A., and W.O. Pruitt Fire and woodland caribou in southeastern Manitoba. Wildlife Monographs. 116: Schaefer, J.A., A.M. Veitch, F.H. Harrington, W.K. Brown, J.B. Theberge, and S.N. Luttich Fuzzy structure and spatial dynamics of a declining woodland caribou population. Oecologia 126: Schneider, R.R., J.B. Stelfox, S. Boutin, and S. Wasel Managing the cumulative impacts of land uses in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin: a modeling approach. Conservation Ecology. 7(1): 8. Available online at: Schneider, R.R., A. Hamann, D. Farr, X. Wang, and S. Boutin Potential effects of climate change on ecosystem distribution in Alberta. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 34: CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 20

31 Schneider, R.R., G. Hauer, W.L. Adamowicz, and S. Boutin Triage for conserving populations of threatened species: The case of woodland caribou in Alberta. Biological Conservation. 143: Schreiber, E.S.G., A.R. Bearlin, S.J. Nicol, and C.R. Todd Adaptive management: a synthesis of current understanding and effective application. Ecological Management & Restoration. 5: Available online at: doi/ /j x/full Sleep, D.J.H., and C. Loehle Validation of a demographic model for woodland caribou. Journal of Wildlife Management. 74: Smith, K.G., E.J. Ficht, D. Hobson, T.C. Sorensen, and D. Hervieux Winter distribution of woodland caribou in relation to clearcut logging in west-central Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 78: Sorensen, T., P. D. McLoughlin, D. Hervieux, E. Dzus, J. Nolan, B. Wynes, and S. Boutin Determining Sustainable Levels of Cumulative Effects for Boreal Caribou. Journal of Wildlife Management. 72: Thomas, D.C A review of wolf-caribou relationships and conservation in Canada. Pages in: Carbyn, L.N., S.H Fritts, and D.R. Seip (eds), Ecology and Conservation of Wolves in a Changing World, Proceedings of the Second North American Symposium on Wolves, Edmonton, Alberta, August, Canadian Circumpolar Institute, University of Alberta. Tracz, B., J.L. LaMontagne, E.M. Bayne, and S. Boutin Annual and monthly range fidelity of female boreal woodland caribou in response to petroleum development. Rangifer. 30: Vors, L.S., J.A. Schaefer, B.A. Pond, A.R. Rodgers, and B.R. Patterson Woodland caribou extirpation and anthropogenic landscape disturbance in Ontario. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71: Weaver, J.L., P.C. Paquet, and L.F. Ruggierio Resilience and conservation of large carnivores in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology. 10: CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 21

32 APPENDICES CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 22