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

Transcription

1 A METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR CARIBOU ACTION PLANNING IN SUPPORT OF THE CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT Iteration 2 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. April 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. Iteration 2 Antoniuk, T.E., E. Dzus, and J. Nishi Copyright 2015, the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement About the CBFA The CBFA, which was signed in May 2010, includes seven leading environmental organizations, the Forest Products Association of Canada, its 18 member companies, and Kruger Inc. It directly applies to more than 73 million hectares across the country, making it the world s largest conservation initiative. The CBFA represents a globally significant precedent that seeks to conserve significant areas of Canada s vast boreal forest, protect threatened woodland caribou, and sustain a healthy forest sector by laying a foundation for the future prosperity of the industry and communities that rely on it. 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., Millar Western Forest Products Ltd., Resolute Forest Products, Tembec Inc., Tolko Industries, West Fraser Timber Co., Weyerhaeuser Company Ltd. Environmental organizations participating in the Agreement: Canadian Boreal Initiative, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the David Suzuki Foundation, ForestEthics, the Nature Conservancy, and the Pew Environmental Group s International Boreal Conservation Campaign. The financial support of the Ivey, Pew and Hewlett Foundations, the Nature Conservancy, the Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC), and Natural Resources Canada 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 i

3 CONTENTS GUIDANCE NOTE ON REVIEW OF THIS ITERATION IV PREFACE 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 6 1. BACKGROUND 1 2. STRUCTURE Goal(s) of Caribou Action Planning Principles for Conservation Planning Defining the Areas of Assessment, Implementation and Influence and Aspects of Habitat Areas of Assessment, Implementation and Influence Boreal Caribou Habitat Existing Management Policies, Strategies, and Plans METHODOLOGY Applying an Iterative Scenario Analysis Approach 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 Conservation Habitat Other Risk Factors Defining Management Measures Applying Disturbance Management Thresholds Best Management Practices Adaptive Management and Integrated Decision Making SUMMARY REFERENCES 33 APPENDIX 1. Template for Assessing the Adequacy of Government Range/Action Plans or CBFA Proposed Caribou Action Plans. 42 APPENDIX 2. Glossary 49 APPENDIX 3. Data sources for current range condition analyses. 54 APPENDIX 4. Data sources for future range condition analyses. 57 APPENDIX 5. Development of Best Management Practices for Regional working groups 59 ii

4 PREFACE The Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement (CBFA, or the Agreement ) commissioned this second iteration of the Caribou Action Planning Methodological Framework (CAP-MF) in order to foster better alignment between its own planning efforts, and those of its partners, in the recovery of boreal woodland caribou. In reviewing this framework, it is important to note that: 1. This framework has been revised by the CBFA Science Committee and the CBFA National Working Group on Goals 2 and 3 (NWG 2/3) to: a. Address the findings and conclusions of Environment Canada s Phase II science and the related National Recovery Strategy for Boreal Woodland Caribou; b. Address the lessons learned from CBFA Phase 1 planning that have emerged through implementation of Iteration 1 of this guidance; c. Incorporate a best management practices toolbox that was developed as part of a CBFA workshop on caribou planning held in February of 2013; and d. Address a range of definitions currently in use for caribou habitat and provide more clarity on their use in this guidance. 2. In implementing the CAP-MF, CBFA Regional Working Groups (RWGs) are directed to pay close attention to the policy frameworks of the jurisdictions in which planning is being undertaken. 3. The CBFA has developed other guidance on a number of matters identified in the CAP-MF, including: a. Guidance on the management of other species of concern (Boreal Priority Species), and how management objectives for these species may interact with caribou conservation planning; and b. The Protected Areas Methodological Framework (PA-MF) Integrated planning within the CBFA The CBFA to date has produced two key components of a conservation planning framework that address the goals of the Agreement: 1) this Caribou Action Planning Methodological Framework (Goal 3: Species at Risk Recovery Plans); and 2) the Protected Areas Planning Methodological Framework (Goal 2: Protected Areas). The third component currently under development is a toolbox of socio-economic analyses to support CBFA conservation planning (Goal 5: Forest Sector Prosperity). While each of these components provides valuable insights and context for CBFA working groups in addressing goals of the Agreement, their value is enhanced by forthcoming guidance from an Integrated Planning and Adaptive Management Framework (IPAMF). The IPAMF will provide a consistent and coordinated approach to planning across CBFA goals, by way of structured decision making, while allowing for regional flexibility in implementation. In addition, the IPAMF provides a mechanism for the integration of additional CBFA goals (notably Goal 1: Forest Practices and Goal 4: Climate Friendly Forest Practices). An additional forthcoming document, the Indicator and Target Framework, will provide guidance on how to select appropriate indicators and targets to support planning efforts. CBFA Working Groups should consult the IPAMF and Indicators and Targets guidance to improve efficiencies and the effectiveness of planning outcomes. Regional planning within the CBFA: Sequencing of Goal 2 and Goal 3 planning The CBFA has encouraged the parties to concurrently address Goals 2 and 3 in an integrated manner during implementation. 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, whereby taking an integrated approach in the short-term would undermine long-term success. iii

5 However, irrespective of the current policy context and other considerations, all CBFA signatories have committed to eventually implementing all aspects of the Agreement. Should CBFA signatories 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. Related considerations for RWGs include: At each sequential step, the assumption is that there will be a re-evaluation of the cumulative ecological and socio-economic impacts 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 planning is complete, and protected areas are added to a suite of caribou management actions? Decision making in support of the twin pillars Decision making in support of economic, social and environmental values is a cornerstone of the CBFA. As such, the IPAMF is being developed to help working groups consider multiple potential scenarios and to evaluate the impacts of each scenario in a structured, transparent way. The overarching goal of this process is to concurrently achieve both low ecological risk and low socio-economic risk (the twin pillars of the CBFA), as defined by best available information (as detailed in the CBFA, Section 13). However, signatories recognize that it may not always be possible to concurrently achieve these objectives in the short to mid-term there are circumstances where: 1. Achieving low ecological risk in the short to mid-term may have an unacceptable impact on socio-economic prosperity in the short to mid-term; and/or 2. Achieving low degrees of socio-economic risk in the short to mid-term may have an unacceptable level of ecological risk in the short to mid-term. 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 goal of concurrently achieving both low ecological risk and low socio-economic risk as follows: 1. The choice needs to be made within the context of a commitment to ensure the objectives are achieved as quickly as possible; 2. The choice needs to be informed by the best available information in relation to the impacts on ecological integrity or socio-economic prosperity in the short to mid-term; 3. The choice needs to be made in a transparent manner; and, 4. The choice needs to be accompanied by a plan on how to concurrently achieve low ecological risk/high degrees of ecological integrity and/or low socio-economic risk/high degrees of socio-economic prosperity over the long term. Finally, please direct all questions and clarifications regarding this document to the CBFA Secretariat at info@borealagreement.ca iv

6 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 vii 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. We would also like to thank the following for their contribution of Appendix 5 of this document: Paula Bentham, Golder Associates Ltd. Wayne Thorpe, CBFA Alberta / BC Coordinator The CBFA similarly thanks the external expert reviewers who committed their time to a critical review of the first iteration of this document (published in 2012): 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: Etienne Bélanger, Forest Products Association of Canada Allan Bell, Tolko (former member) Rick Bonar, West Fraser Timber Co Ltd. Amanda Carr, Canopy (former member) Wendy Crosina, Weyerhaeuser Ronnie Drever, The Nature Conservancy Elston Dzus, Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc. Rick Groves, Resolute Forest Products (former member) Pierre Iachetti, ForestEthics (former member) Kate Lindsay, Forest Products Association of Canada Chris Miller, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) Rachel Plotkin, David Suzuki Foundation (former member) Jim Stephenson, Canfor (former member) Kari Stuart-Smith, Canfor Mark Tamas, Tolko Meredith Trainor, International Boreal Conservation Campaign (former member) Alan Thorne, Tembec Jim Witiw, Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd. Aran O Carroll, formerly CBFA National Planning Coordinator Stephen Yamasaki, NWG 2/3 Coordinator v

7 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 (former member), Boreal Songbird Initiative Chuck Rumsey, formerly CBFA National Science Coordinator Wynet Smith, formerly Director of integrated Planning The ISAT authors would also like to thank Steven Kennett. Finally, we would like to acknowledge the significant contribution of the participants to the CBFA Caribou Action Planning Workshop, held in Edmonton, Alberta, in February Their participation helped to identify best management practices for caribou action planning and lessons learned from CBFA experience vi

8 DEVELOPMENT PROCESS FOR CBFA SCIENCE PRODUCTS vii

9 BACKGROUND The Methodological Framework for Caribou Action Planning in Support of the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement (hereafter the methodological framework or simply the framework ) provides guidance to Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement (CBFA, or the Agreement ) Regional Working Group (RWG) members and supporting planning practitioners tasked with developing CBFA Proposed Caribou Action Plans for woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) boreal populations (hereafter boreal caribou). The framework is intended to help develop CBFA Proposed Caribou Action Plans that meet a consistent and high standard of quality and completeness while recognizing the need to tailor each plan and planning process to regional caribou, forestry, policy, and implementation realities. Provincial and territorial governments are the primary authority for caribou management and monitoring in Canada, with federal government involvement reflecting the legal designation of boreal caribou as threatened under the Species at Risk Act (SARA). Governments are tasked with developing boreal caribou management and recovery processes (hereafter Government caribou plans 1 ). A fundamental goal of CBFA Proposed Caribou Action Plans is to accelerate the development and implementation of Government caribou plans by identifying a suite of conservation measures that CBFA signatories, and others, could apply to maintain or enhance self-sustaining caribou populations. Note: throughout this document conservation, conservation plans and conservation planning are used in a broad sense and include a variety of habitat-based, and potentially population-based, actions. In a similar vein, use of the term caribou action plan or caribou action planning with reference to CBFA Proposed Caribou Action Plans is not intended to usurp or replace the legislated requirement for governments to develop caribou action plans that are required by the federal Species At Risk Act. Schedule A of the CBFA, notes that appropriate actions for caribou action planning include measures for both protection and management. Protection measures as outlined in the CBFA relate primarily to habitat conservation (e.g., long-term deferrals and new protected areas see Strittholt and Leroux 2012), while management measures can include a suite of habitat- or population-based activities at the tenure ( area of implementation ), caribou population range or area of assessment scale 2. The mandate for habitatmanagement measures is shared by forest product companies, other tenure holders (e.g., oil and gas sector), governments (provincial, territorial, federal and /or Aboriginal), and other land users (e.g., recreational users). Forest management plans and the associated planning and operational efforts of CBFA signatories will primarily affect various aspects of habitat supply, suitability and restoration. Population management measures are the direct mandate of provincial/ territorial governments (possibly in collaboration with Aboriginal governments). CBFA Proposed Caribou Action Plans should identify a comprehensive suite of conservation actions addressing primarily habitat management measures. Recommendations for population management measures may be made for completeness and to highlight the need to pass these recommendations along to the government agency responsible for population management actions. In both cases (habitat and population measures) the RWG should identify the party or parties responsible for implementing said action(s). For example, CBFA signatories (2010) may be able to recommend habitatbased conservation actions (e.g., identify potential protected areas, manage areas to restore them to suitable habitat), even though implementation of such a measure is government-mandated. Recommendations should be shared with government agencies responsible for caribou recovery and with other parties implicated in the suite of management measures identified by the RWG in its CBFA Proposed Caribou Action Plan. The methodological framework is not intended to be a comprehensive review of the scientific literature on caribou ecology or recovery planning or a prescriptive how-to planning manual. Instead, it emphasizes the need to apply best available information drawn from science, traditional knowledge, and other appropriate sources in a transparent way. The information collection and planning process will be most effective if it involves scientists, Aboriginal peoples, other industry, and government land, resource and wildlife managers living or working in the region. 1 Government caribou plans is a broad phrase to include a suite of documents that are developed by government agencies with regards to caribou conservation in various jurisdictions. 2 See section 2.3; also a glossary of terms used in the framework is provided in Appendix 2. 1

10 Regional Working Groups should first evaluate finalized or in-progress Government caribou plans relative to this CBFA methodological framework using the evaluation tool provided in Appendix 1. If the Government caribou plan is consistent with this framework, then little or no additional work would be required and efforts could focus on jointly advocating for implementation of the Government caribou plan. If there are gaps or inconsistencies between the Government caribou plan and the CBFA methodological framework, the RWG should focus its efforts on addressing the gaps, or provide rationale as to why these gaps are not relevant. In the absence of any Government caribou plan for a given region, the RWG will need to develop its own CBFA Proposed Caribou Action Plan(s). Regional Working Groups will need to adapt guidance from the methodological framework to accommodate regional variations in ecological factors, land use activities, and socio-economic situations. Because of this regional variability, the framework identifies the key factors that must be considered explicitly and transparently by each RWG, but does not prescribe specific methods. Instead, the framework provides examples of approaches and tools used by other RWGs and emphasizes the value of an iterative, scenario-based approach to conservation planning. Regional Working Groups are encouraged to focus on integrated and strategic management measures that have the greatest long-term benefit for caribou by addressing current conservation challenges and opportunities. The methodological framework for boreal 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 RWGs start with the science (i.e., what measures would be taken if acting solely on the basis of best available science) and then integrate protected area analyses and policy, economic, and social values and constraints in a clear and transparent way. As noted above, an iterative, scenario-based approach is considered to be an effective way to achieve this. Further guidance to CBFA working groups relative to the integration of ecologically-based science and socio-economic evaluations is provided in the attached preamble, other CBFA documentation and in non-cbfa literature (e.g., Dzus et al. 2010; Environment Canada 2011, 2012; Strittholt and Leroux 2012). 2

11 2. STRUCTURE To provide a measure of consistency, RWGs should use the following structure as guidance for drafting their CBFA Proposed Caribou Action Plans. A table of contents should be developed using the following headings (we provide some additional detail and a few specific examples in sections to follow). Goal(s) of Caribou Action Planning Principles for Caribou Action Planning Area of Assessment and Area of Implementation Include identification of caribou range and forest management unit boundaries (differences outlined below, in sections 2.3 and 3.1.1) State of Knowledge (Current) of Caribou Range (Habitat and Population 3 ) Include identification of best current habitat Principal land use occupants 4 in the range, besides CBFA signatories Monitoring 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(S) OF CARIBOU ACTION PLANNING Proposed caribou action plan goals should be linked directly to factors that are affecting the species At- Risk designation. The goal of caribou action planning should focus on the maintenance or enhancement of self-sustaining 5 woodland caribou populations within the plan area. Some provincial recovery plans also include goals relating to habitat; CBFA RWGs should consider inclusion of an action-planning goal related to habitat because aspects of habitat conservation are within the management purview of forest product companies, and functional habitat is a prerequisite for self-sustaining caribou populations. Consistency with provincial and federal Species at Risk 3 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. legislation should be observed. The Species at Risk Act recovery goal for boreal caribou is to achieve selfsustaining local populations in all boreal caribou ranges throughout their current distribution in Canada, to the extent possible (Environment Canada 2012). 2.2 PRINCIPLES FOR CONSERVATION PLANNING Although the collective understanding of boreal caribou ecology and factors influencing caribou population dynamics has increased substantially in recent decades (as evidenced by the number of peer-reviewed publications), there are still important gaps and uncertainty in the current state of knowledge. Similarly, there is uncertainty in diagnosing the causal factors driving population declines as well as the effectiveness of management strategies and actions for achieving long-term recovery of self-sustaining boreal caribou populations. Consequently, RWGs must carefully assess the state of knowledge relative to both ecological and land use parameters in their region. Conservation plans should be developed to build upon the strengths of local knowledge and incorporate an adaptive management approach to addressing key uncertainties. RWGs should not let uncertainty delay action and a precautionary approach should guide decisions when considering options. The following principles provide the basis for caribou action planning: Shared commitment to caribou action planning: based on the assumption that all land users on the 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 will be critical in order to achieve caribou action planning. Cumulative effects management: maintaining the structure and function of the boreal forest system is essential for the long-term sustainability of woodland caribou and other boreal species. The cumulative effect of all factors impacting woodland caribou, their use of habitat, and their survival must be addressed in conservation plans. 4 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. 5 See glossary for definition of self-sustaining populations 3

12 Adaptive management: recognizing the uncertainty associated with planning and implementing caribou conservation actions, the systematic and iterative process of adaptive management should be applied to continually improve management policies and practices by learning from the outcomes of previously employed policies and practices. In addition, the following guiding principles defined by the CBFA are relevant for regional caribou action planning: 1. Best Available Science RWGs will base proposed strategies and outcomes on the best available science and information. 2. Ecologically Effective RWGs will select outcomes that, if socially and economically equivalent, are most ecologically effective. 3. Minimize Social and Economic Impacts RWGs will select outcomes that, if ecologically equivalent, minimize social and economic impacts first, followed by any disproportionate timber supply effects. 4. Precautionary Approach RWGs will adopt a precautionary approach, while maintaining a process of active adaptive management. Using best conservation habitat (see section below) as building blocks for caribou conservation zones is an example of applying the precautionary approach. 5. Address Impacts on Wood Supply and Costs RWGs will minimize, mitigate, and/or address the impact of new actions on wood supply and costs. 6. Recognize Changing Forest Health and Protection Circumstances RWGs will recognize that potential changes in circumstances may occur (related to such things as fire, insect infestation, and disease) and may take precedence over their planned actions. 2.3 DEFINING THE AREAS OF ASSESSMENT, IMPLEMENTATION AND INFLUENCE AND ASPECTS OF HABITAT Areas of Assessment, Implementation and Influence Conservation planning is occurring across the boreal forest at different scales and often within more than one planning process at a RWG table. The following terminology should be used to ensure consistency in approach. Area of Assessment: the broader ecological area where protected areas and caribou action planning analysis is conducted. It should be based on broader ecological considerations although the extent of this area may vary considerably, depending on the context. With respect to caribou action planning, and to be consistent with the Boreal Caribou Recovery Strategy (Environment Canada 2012) and the Environment Canada (2011) critical habitat science review, the local population range provided by provincial and territorial jurisdictions should be used as the foundation for defining the area of assessment. Area of Implementation: the area within tenure boundaries of forest companies signatory to the CBFA, where detailed recommendations are made and where signatory companies can most directly take action. Area of Influence 6 : an area beyond the Area of Implementation (outside versus inside tenure issue), where signatories may have an ability to influence outcomes beyond their own tenures. The Boreal Caribou Recovery Strategy (Environment Canada 2012) identifies the local population range as the relevant spatial scale for the identification of critical habitat and Government caribou plans. Environment Canada (2012) defines critical habitat as i) the area within the boundary of each caribou range that provides an overall ecological condition that will allow for an ongoing recruitment and retirement cycle of habitat, which maintains a perpetual state of a minimum of 65% of the area as undisturbed habitat; and ii) biophysical attributes required by boreal caribou to carry out life processes. The updated scientific assessment (Environment Canada 2011) identified three types of boreal caribou ranges that reflect confidence in delineated boundaries: 8 conservation units with low certainty; 20 improved conservation units with medium certainty; and 23 local population units with high certainty. Of these, 14 self-sustaining populations should be maintained and 37 not selfsustaining populations should be stabilized and achieve self-sustaining status. For clarity, the group of boreal caribou occupying any range is referred to as a local population of boreal caribou. 6 Area of Influence is used in a spatial sense here, but it is not dissimilar to the concept of Sphere of Influence that reflects professional associations with colleagues or business or agencies with whom individuals or businesses or agencies interact. 4

13 In light of the CBFA s direction to be consistent with Environment Canada s recovery strategy and the 2011 critical habitat science review, we recommend using the local population range provided by provincial and territorial jurisdictions as the foundation for defining the area of assessment. Note however, while range is a foundation for identifying an area of assessment, range does not necessarily equal the area of assessment. Regional variation in caribou ecology as well as socio-political considerations will also need to be factored into the identification of the assessment and implementation area boundaries. 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 (FMU 7 ) 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 the FMU may encompass one or more entire caribou range. In other areas, there may be one or more FMU s that overlap parts of a given caribou range. Caribou ranges may overlap provincial or territorial boundaries, thus further complicating area of assessment definition. Regional Working Groups will need to define the area of assessment and area of implementation for their CBFA Proposed Caribou Action Plan(s) with due consideration of how range is defined locally and how the range(s) intersects forest management units and governmental jurisdiction boundaries. 7 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 FMU s constitute a single tenure 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 multiple forest product companies operate within one caribou range, CBFA RWGs should consider solutions in the implementation area that exist within and outside of current tenure arrangements. Further guidance for defining assessment and implementation areas is provided in section 3.2 below Boreal Caribou Habitat A variety of terms are used to describe habitat in the methodological framework. Table 1 provides the definitions of these terms as used here for action planning, notes the way that they relate to each other, and describes how they can represent different aspects of critical habitat 8 defined by Environment Canada (2012). Definitions of habitat and other action planning terms are also provided in Appendix 2 (the glossary). Some organizations / provincial agencies are using terms that are similar to definitions presented in this CBFA framework. For example, functional habitat as presented here is similar in some ways to the way Ontario 9 uses the term refuge habitat and how Alberta uses effective habitat. RWG s will need to familiarize themselves with local variants of references to habitat and cross-reference the terms when engaging others. 8 The characterization of critical habitat and habitat components provided here is not intended to constitute legal opinion with regards to this term. RWG members should engage Environment Canada directly or seek legal counsel when referencing critical habitat in their proposed CBFA caribou action plans or other conservation planning documents. 9 Elkie P., K. Green, G. Racey, M. Gluck, J. Elliott, G. Hooper, R. Kushneriuk and R. Rempel, Science and Information in support of Policies that address the Conservation of Woodland Caribou in Ontario: Occupancy, Habitat and Disturbance Models, Estimates of Natural Variation and Range Level Summaries. Electronic Document. Version Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forests Branch. 5

14 Table 1. Relationships between habitat types described in the Methodological Framework for Boreal Caribou Action Planning. 10 Critical Habitat 10 HABITAT TYPE DEFINITION NOTES Undisturbed Habitat Disturbed Habitat Burned Habitat Habitat Loss (Lost Habitat) Habitat Alteration (Altered Habitat) Indirect Disturbance (Buffer Habitat) The habitat within each boreal caribou range that is necessary to maintain or recover self-sustaining local boreal caribou populations throughout their distribution (Environment Canada 2012). Further defined by Environment Canada (2012) to include the area within the boundary of each caribou range that provides an overall ecological condition that will allow for an ongoing recruitment and retirement cycle of habitat, which maintains a perpetual state of a minimum of 65% of the area as undisturbed habitat; and ii) biophysical attributes required by boreal caribou to carry out life processes. Based on Environment Canada (2012), this includes areas within the boundary of each boreal caribou range that have not been disturbed by human activity or recent fire (i.e., disturbed habitat as defined below). Based on methods described in Environment Canada (2011, 2012), this includes caribou habitat that has been directly or indirectly lost, altered or degraded by natural processes and/or human activity. Includes burned habitat, lost habitat, altered habitat, and buffer habitat as defined below. Based on Environment Canada (2012), this includes areas burned within the last 40 years. Based on Environment Canada (2012), this includes linear and polygonal features permanently disturbed by human land use with no immediate or long-term future value to boreal caribou. Based on Environment Canada (2012), this includes visible, non-permanent linear and polygonal human land use features, where these do no overlap with burned or lost habitat. Based on Environment Canada (2012), this includes areas within 500 m of linear and polygonal features (permanent and non-permanent), and where these do not overlap with burned, lost, or altered habitat. Typically, this will include both disturbed and undisturbed habitat. For action planning purposes, critical habitat within each boreal caribou range, includes undisturbed habitat, disturbed habitat (where range is below 65% undisturbed), and functional habitat as defined below. Additional information on biophysical attributes of suitable caribou habitat is provided in Environment Canada (2012), Appendices H and D. Current disturbed/ undisturbed status of each range is described in Environment Canada (2012), Appendices G and J. The location of the 65% undisturbed habitat within a range will vary over time (Environment Canada 2012). This does not explicitly consider habitat suitability (i.e., the availability, quality, and spatial configuration of boreal caribou habitat at a specified point in time). Disturbed habitat includes a continuum of habitat quality from low to relatively high for woodland caribou. Habitat quality is affected by a wide variety of factors including: vegetation condition, time since disturbance, level of human activity, and distance to nearest industrial footprint. Current disturbed/ undisturbed status of each range described in Environment Canada (2012) reflects visibility from 2010 Landsat imagery at a scale of 1: For greater clarity, burned areas older than 40 years are not considered disturbed using Environment Canada (2012) methodology. Examples include: conversion to agriculture; paved roads; and industrial facilities. Examples include: timber harvest areas, trails, seismic lines, pipelines, hydroelectric corridors, and well pads. Assumed management direction is that altered habitat within boreal caribou ranges will be restored to conditions suitable for caribou at some time in future 11. Environment Canada (2011) found that a 500 m buffer around human land use features best represents the combined effects of increased predation and avoidance on caribou population trends at the national scale. Burned habitat does not have a 500 m buffer zone using Environment Canada (2012) methodology. 10 The characterization of critical habitat and habitat components provided here is not intended to constitute legal opinion with regards to this term. RWG members should engage Environment Canada directly or seek legal counsel when referencing critical habitat in their proposed CBFA caribou action plans or other conservation planning documents. 6

15 Functional Habitat Best Current Habitat Best Future Habitat Best Conservation Habitat Caribou habitat that provides biophysical attributes required by boreal caribou (Environment Canada 2012), is sufficiently old to provide winter forage, has comparatively small areas of young forest and anthropogenic footprint (i.e., linear and polygonal features), and is of sufficient size to provide caribou with opportunities to space away from predators. Areas of suitable caribou habitat in each range where probability of caribou persistence is enhanced. Generally assumed to consist mainly of undisturbed habitat. Areas where future landscape scenario projections suggest that habitat suitability (and presumably functional habitat) can most likely be maintained or restored. The combination of suitable undisturbed and disturbed habitat identified by RWG in each range where projected probability of caribou persistence is enhanced, considering reasonably foreseeable natural processes and human activity. Identification of functional habitat is based on explicit evaluation of habitat suitability (i.e., the availability, quality, and spatial configuration of boreal caribou habitat at a specified point in time). Criteria for sufficient age, young forest, sufficient size, and biophysical attributes are to be defined by each RWG using criteria provided in section This differs from undisturbed habitat because it explicitly considers habitat suitability (i.e., the availability, quality, and spatial configuration of boreal caribou habitat at a specified point in time). Typically, this will consist mainly of undisturbed habitat. See guidance on biophysical attributes of critical habitat in Environment Canada (2012), Appendix G. Best current habitat areas have the following attributes: larger (ideally >5,000 km2, but no smaller than 50 km2); more continuous habitat; less current human footprint; lower perimeter to edge ratio; and further from predator source habitat. RWG may undertake scenario analysis to consider plausible scenarios of landscape change, including future land use, natural disturbance, and climate change. Typically, this habitat consists of some combination of best current and best future habitat that has the following attributes: larger (ideally >5,000 km2, but no smaller than 50 km2); more continuous habitat; less current human footprint; lower perimeter to edge ratio; further from predator source habitat ; and low potential for competing human uses See definition of habitat restoration in glossary. 7

16 2.4 EXISTING MANAGEMENT POLICIES, STRATEGIES, AND PLANS Policies 12 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 cumulative effects of multiple land uses and, as such, will require policy frameworks that explicitly manage combined effects emanating from multiple actors. Decision making 12 The term policy is used here generically and relates to treaties, laws, acts, policies, regulations, etc. 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, RWGs should conduct a policy review to confirm the compatibility of management measures recommended in CBFA Proposed Caribou Action Plans with applicable policies. While CBFA Proposed Caribou Action Plans will generally focus on the area of implementation where signatory forest tenures occur, recommended policy changes should be included in the plans and submitted as advice to the appropriate government or corporate body responsible for caribou conservation. The realm of the possible should not be bound by realities of the present. 8

17 3. METHODOLOGY Caribou action plans must consider: the biophysical attributes that caribou require for all elements of their life history; the natural factors that affect caribou reproduction and survival; the influence of anthropogenic land use on caribou habitat suitability, reproduction and survival; and the policies and decision-making processes that affect land use practices and population dynamics. Wherever possible, CBFA Proposed 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. Because of regional variability, the framework identifies the key factors that must be considered explicitly and transparently by each RWG. This section provides examples of approaches and tools that have been, or may be, used by RWGs for caribou action planning. Regional Working Groups are encouraged to focus on integrated and strategic management measures that have the greatest long-term benefit for caribou by addressing current conservation challenges and opportunities. The adaptive management and integrated decision making diagram provided in Figure 1 depicts the key process considerations to preparing a caribou action plan. While this diagram depicts a series of progressive and independent steps, experience to date demonstrates that conservation planning is most effective with an iterative, scenario-based approach where tasks shown in Figure 1 are repeated or conducted in parallel. Ideally, RWGs should: begin with a discussion of alternate desired outcomes to be explored and the information that will be needed by the RWG and others to make decisions on one or more preferred options; compile all available information and expertise to identify planning gaps and work priorities (apply the template provided in Appendix 1); consider the methods or tools available to generate the information needed for decision-making; integrate caribou action planning into the conservation matrix model (i.e., CBFA goal 1 and CBFA protected area planning (Strittholt and Leroux 2012)); make explicit and transparent assumptions, with supporting rationale; and complete evaluations for the entire area of assessment to understand current conservation challenges and opportunities, but focus management measures within the area of implementation. 3.1 APPLYING AN ITERATIVE SCENARIO ANALYSIS APPROACH Effective caribou action plans require a futureoriented outlook that combines our current scientific understanding with plausible scenarios of landscape change to identify current and future risks and management options. Caribou action plans need to be transparent, adaptive, and flexible, with the underlying logic and key assumptions clearly articulated, so that a team can implement, coordinate, and monitor effectiveness of its recommended actions and adjust if necessary. Caribou action plans also need to be able to deal with changes and surprises, which are inevitable in any plan. The primary concerns for caribou management are whether: 1) combined natural and anthropogenic range disturbance is expected to increase or decrease relative to current conditions over the next 40 to 100 years; and 2) 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 disturbance is most likely to occur. Scenario analysis has proven to be an effective approach for Phase 1 caribou action plan development and should be considered by RWGs. 9

18 Figure 1. Caribou action planning flow diagram. What is Scenario Analysis? Scenarios are plausible, but structurally different descriptions of how the future might unfold, and are used to provide insight into the challenges and opportunities of realistic future states (Duinker and Greig 2007, Mahmoud, et al. 2009). For CBFA Proposed Caribou Action Planning, scenarios can be applied to understand the implications of different management outcomes (e.g., low risk vs. high risk to caribou) and thereby improve the regional working group's understanding of ecological, land use, and management factors that have the greatest influence on desired outcomes. There is real value in adopting scenario analysis approaches because the methodologies align well with teamoriented, iterative, planning and management processes (Swart et al. 2004, Alcomo 2008). Further, there has been strong acceptance of the rigour of scenario analyses as shown in the broad scientific application of the methodology in fields such as ecology (Pereira 2010, MA 2005), environmental assessment (Duinker and Greig 2007, Alcomo 2008), climate change (Moss et al. 2010), and epidemiology (Ghani et al. 1998) to highlight a few. To date, regional working groups have used a number of computer models for scenario evaluation including: timber supply (e.g., Woodstock & Stanley); ecological benchmark and reserve area optimization (e.g., Marxan and tools developed for the BEACONS project); and forest management optimization (e.g., Patchworks). 10

19 Scenario analysis methods explicitly explore uncertainty about alternative futures, and can use the power and speed of contemporary simulation models to test concepts, conduct sensitivity analyses, challenge dogmas, and seek those elements of systems that have high impact and high uncertainty. Computerbased scenario simulations can be used to assess the influence of assumptions or management approaches under changing landscape conditions, and to explore alternative management strategies. 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). Given this understanding of environmental scenario analysis, it is important to recognize that while computer-based scenario simulations are not able to accurately predict future conditions, they can help evaluate the influence of different forest management options on risk to caribou persistence and socio-economic outcomes. Iterative application of scenario models, in combination with other available information, can help RWGs explore consequences of land use and natural disturbance and provide supporting rationale for recommended management measures. 3.2 CHARACTERIZING RANGE CONDITION (CURRENT AND FUTURE) Range condition analyses represent the first step in the conservation planning process and are intended to characterize current and future mortality risk and habitat suitability (quantity, quality, and spatial configuration) of each designated woodland caribou range. Analyses should also identify areas of best current habitat and best future habitat as priorities for habitat conservation, restoration, and management. Best conservation habitat is subsequently derived through discussion, analysis and modeling of best current and best future habitat (see Table 1 for habitat definitions and see below for further discussion). Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping and analytical tools (e.g., ArcGIS or ArcInfo) will be needed to collate data into a common file for spatial analysis Range Delineation To properly describe current habitat condition, CBFA Proposed Caribou Action Plans should begin with government-designated local population ranges. There is, however, no common method by which boreal caribou ranges have been delineated in Canada, partly as a result of variable data availability (Environment Canada 2011). Designated ranges include a spectrum from large, continuous areas with variable or undocumented caribou use (e.g., northern Ontario), to discrete polygons delineated by suitable habitat and documented use (e.g., <3,000 km2 Alberta ranges). Guidance for these two types of ranges is provided below, but in all cases, the area of assessment should be sufficiently large to incorporate: a self-sustaining caribou population. A theoretically minimum viable population was defined as greater than 300 animals by Environment Canada (2008). Selection of different minimum population targets by RWGs may result in a lower or higher risk of persistence; and both direct and indirect predation risk. The inclusion of indirect risk emphasizes that landscape conditions in habitat that is 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 ranges 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 that incorporates multiple local populations, a smaller area of assessment may be delineated by the RWG. The area of assessment should minimally include the biophysical attributes (habitat characteristics) necessary for a selfsustaining local caribou population, the appropriate ecological unit for conservation. Appendix 7.1 of the Environment Canada (2011) science assessment summarizes factors to be considered when defining ranges for local boreal caribou populations. This appendix notes that ideally, population dynamics of animals within a specified local population should be governed by similar environmental conditions and resource availability and limited exchange of individuals with adjacent populations (<10% annual immigration or emigration). While some local populations may be spatially discrete, it is also possible that local 11

20 populations can use very large areas of relatively continuous habitat (e.g., far northern Ontario; Environment Canada 2011). Local caribou populations within continuous habitat can be delineated using at least 3 years of detailed movement or survey data where these exist (Schaefer et al. 2001; Courtois et al. 2007; Environment Canada 2011). In the absence of adequate demographic data, available habitat suitability information will need to be used. Environment Canada (2011) found that local population range size was inversely related to forage availability and level of disturbance, and directly related to the standard deviation of forest patch size; they also provides further guidance on delineating local population ranges. Alternatively, a conservative regional caribou density estimate can be applied to define assessment area size assuming the minimum viable population of 300 animals defined by Environment Canada (2008) 13. Other factors that could be considered by RWGs include: the frequency and size of natural disturbance events; anticipated future land use; other risk factors such as predation, disease, and harvest; critical or unique habitat features; as well as traditional and local knowledge and expert opinion (Environment Canada 2011). In all cases, assumptions and rationale for local population range delineation should be clearly stated. and designated caribou range boundaries have been defined only by habitat suitability 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. Although the assessment area boundaries of CBFA Proposed Caribou Action Plans should relate, as much as possible, to ecological boundaries to evaluate current and future range condition, the implementation area will most commonly reflect administrative boundaries that constrain implementation of management actions. As an example, some recent caribou action planning in Alberta stopped at the Alberta-Saskatchewan border although some caribou populations are shared with Saskatchewan (Athabasca Landscape Team (ALT) 2009) Small Discrete Range Small discrete ranges may reflect islands of suitable habitat or areas where range contraction has occurred as a result of disturbance (Environment Canada 2011). The regional assessment area for small, discrete ranges will frequently need to be expanded to incorporate a sustainable caribou population along with 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 assessment 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 Figure 2. Caribou action planning area of assessment incorporating designated range plus buffer to reflect predation risk associated with adjacent areas 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 3 and e.g., density of 2-3 caribou per 100 km2 with assumed minimum viable population of 300 animals gives an assessment area of 10,000 to 15,000 km2 12

21 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 and its associated accuracy and coverage, attributes assigned to land use and landscape features, and consistency of coverage across the assessment area. Data on width or area of land use features 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 cutoffs), and adopt or modify them as appropriate to best reflect their assessment area and available data. Assumptions and associated rationale should be clearly stated. Management recommendations should be more precautionary where there is more uncertainty. In all instances, the use of an adaptive management framework should be emphasized (see section 3.2.3) 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 areas of assessment and implementation. Current range condition assessments should include: 1. Estimates of boreal caribou population size and/ or population trend (e.g., annual finite rate of increase lambda measured over at least 3 years), distribution and any areas/features that are disproportionately important for caribou (e.g., discrete calving areas, refuge habitat 14, 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, then use the following as guidance and state assumptions and associated rationale for the values selected: suitable habitat that includes lichen biomass 14 Refuge habitat is used in this CBFA document in a restricted sense to include large lakes with islands or uplands surrounded by lakes and bogs that give caribou a higher likelihood of avoiding or escaping wolves and other predators. that is within the natural variability of a mature conifer stand 15 (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); suitable habitat includes areas currently used by caribou; less suitable habitat includes existing burned habitat, altered habitat, buffer habitat, and habitat that does not provide optimum biophysical attributes (e.g., < years to reflect regional variation noted above, displayed by age class). Note: undisturbed habitat should be prioritized as being more suitable than habitat that has been disturbed by human activity. 3. Predator distribution and density (where available). 4. Other prey (e.g., moose, white-tailed deer, and beaver) distribution and density (where available). 5. Critical habitat defined in accordance with federal, provincial, and territorial Species at Risk legislation (useful information is provided in the boreal caribou recovery strategy (Environment Canada 2012). 6. Human land use intensity: forest harvest blocks (e.g., <30-50 years old 16 ); facilities; mines; communities, residences, and cabins; linear corridors, in block roads, and trails; reservoirs; other clearings and industrial and recreational features (useful information is provided in the boreal caribou recovery strategy (Environment Canada 2012)). 7. Existing tenures and administrative/planning units that affect land use patterns and management actions. Regional Working Groups may 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, and aboriginal groups). Suggested data sources for assessing current range condition are summarized in Appendix 3. Where caribou monitoring data do not exist, current population trends can be inferred from empiricallybased disturbance-population relationships. These relationships provide information on relative population 15 This is mainly pine forest in western boreal regions, but includes pine, spruce and fir forest in eastern boreal regions. 16 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 2008; Sorensen et al. 2008). Regional Working Groups should select an age most appropriate to their study area 13

22 trends (decline vs. growth) rather than actual estimates of demographic performance (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. The spatially explicit Environment Canada (2011) relationship incorporating fire and buffered anthropogenic disturbance was developed with data from across Canada and is generally applicable to ranges in the boreal forest 17. 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 rangescale relationships also incorporated fire and anthropogenic disturbance but used different methodologies and did 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 (northern Alberta and British Columbia). While the Environment Canada (2011 and 2012) analyses are considered by CBFA (2010) to be the recognized national standard and a recommended source of best available information for understanding the influence of disturbance on boreal caribou populations, RWGs should consider all options and select the most appropriate relationship for their assessment area or compare trends derived from each relationship, clearly stating the rationale if an option other than Environment Canada (2011) is used. The discussion of current range condition should identify key relationships, important areas (including large areas not currently disturbed by human activity), 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 critical size 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; 17 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. habitat quantity, quality and spatial configuration; and the underlying assumptions of management actions. Throughout this methodological framework, functional habitat, is defined as: habitat that provides biophysical attributes required by boreal caribou, is sufficiently old to provide winter forage 18, has comparatively small areas of young forest 19 and disturbed habitat (e.g., linear features such as roads, seismic lines, pipelines, or polygonal features such as timber harvest areas, processing facilities, well sites, and mines), and is of sufficient size 20 to provide individual caribou with opportunities to space away from predators (see also McCutchen et al. (2009)). At the range scale, undisturbed habitat (as defined by the Environment Canada (2012) equation) can be considered functional habitat as a starting point for RWG planning. However the utility of this approach and assumptions used in the Environment Canada (2012) equation should be explicitly considered by RWGs. The following points are provided for consideration: Should 40 years after a burn be adopted as the cutoff for young forest representing areas unsuitable for caribou and highly suitable for alternate prey? As noted above, habitat may not be suitable for caribou for 80 to 125 years following fire in some areas, so RWGs may decide to increase the young forest cut-off in these ranges. Alternatively, fires in deciduous / mixedwood upland areas within caribou range may not affect caribou directly but young deciduous stands are attractive to other ungulates for varying periods of time depending on ecoregion, latitude, or altitude. Local findings should guide how long such deciduous stands are considered a negative influence on caribou via apparent competition (DeCesare et al. 2009). There is considerable uncertainty regarding whether or when caribou re-occupancy occurs following disturbance, but specific criteria should be identified to designate suitable habitat as functional following habitat loss, habitat alteration, and indirect disturbance. These criteria will guide functional habitat restoration efforts and be considered in an adaptive management framework to confirm or refine restoration and management strategies. No broadly accepted criteria for functional habitat restoration exist. The 18 as defined by each RWG using the criteria provided earlier in section as defined by each RWG using the criteria provided earlier in section as defined by each RWG. 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. 14

23 following considerations should be discussed by RWGs to allow the development of a regionallyspecific definition regarding when habitat could be considered restored to a functional status following disturbance by human activity. 1. footprint not visible on Landsat imagery at a scale of 1:50,000 (the Environment Canada (2011) criterion and default) if other criteria are not deemed to be more suitable 2. specified age after land use activity stops 3. minimum vegetation height from field or remote survey 4. minimum lichen biomass from field or remote survey 5. minimum tree density from field or remote survey 6. specified vegetation type / community composition from field or remote survey 7. other prey or predator density from field or remote survey 8. reduced use of restored linear features by humans or predators as demonstrated by effectiveness monitoring Which active restoration or other best management practices should be used to hasten recovery of disturbed habitat to a functional state? A 500 metre buffer was applied by Environment Canada (2011) to human land use features because it was found to best represent the combined effects of increased predation and avoidance on caribou population trends at the national scale. The applicability of this buffer to all ranges has been questioned, in part due to the variability observed in the Environment Canada (2011) meta-analysis. Regional Working Groups may decide to apply another buffer to characterize anthropogenic disturbance where range-specific data are available, or to accommodate regional variations in ecological factors. A RWG decision to vary from the 500 metre buffer should be supported by empirical data, expert opinion or preferably peer-reviewed reference(s) Future Range Condition As shown in Figure 1, 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, as appropriate. 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 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 4. The disturbance-population relationship developed by Environment Canada (2011) is limited in its ability to simulate future conditions because it requires spatially explicit analyses on the overlap between natural and man-made disturbances, and this cannot be meaningfully projected into the future 21. Regional Working Groups may wish to make conservative assumptions about disturbance overlap based on existing range conditions, conduct sensitivity analyses with different overlap assumptions, or apply disturbance-population relationships that do not rely on spatially explicit analyses (i.e., Sorensen et al. 2008; Schneider et al. 2010), 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; Weaver et al. 1996; Gunderson 2000). A concern for 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-cariboupredator system into new and possibly irreversible domains (ALT 2009; Schneider et al. 2009, 2010, Festa- Bianchet et al. 2011, Latham et al. 2011). Information on natural disturbance rates, predator/prey expansion, and possible climate change implications should be drawn from best available sources (e.g., regional climate change forecasts from Canadian Climate Impacts and Scenarios, Canadian Climate Change Scenarios Network, ca/; and Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium, pacificclimate.org/). Regional Working Groups should consider the environmental niche analysis included in 21 Environment Canada s supplementary national analyses will include aspatial projections and if available, these should be considered for future range condition analyses by RWGs. 15

24 Environment Canada (2008) and may choose to include specific scenarios that relate to climate change as part of their future range condition evaluation. Regional Working Groups should consider conducting a climate change vulnerability assessment as part of their scenario analysis as it relates to future range condition and to the evaluation of alternative management approaches (Glick et al. 2011; Williamson et. al. 2012). Recommended management measures (see section 3.2 below) should also incorporate consideration of climate change if deemed to be a significant consideration for a given region. Finally, regional caribou action plans should also consider uncertainty associated with restoring functional habitat in boreal forest disturbed by human activity. Recovery of suitable caribou habitat will require at least 40 years (Schaefer and Pruitt 1991; Bradshaw et al. 1995; Dunford et al. 2006; ALT 2009), and caribou may avoid logged areas (with road access) twice as strongly as burned areas (Beguin et al. 2013). 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. Indeed, in Ontario a long-term pattern of caribou range recession and extirpation has been associated with the spatial patterns of forest harvesting (Schaefer 2003, Vors et al. 2007). This uncertainty reinforces the importance of delineating and conserving best current habitat as the building blocks for management planning and recommendations Delineating Best Conservation Habitat A common conclusion from virtually all boreal caribou studies is that large areas of continuous, relatively undisturbed, caribou habitat are preferred over landscape areas that are more disturbed (by either natural or, more particularly, human activity) (e.g., Smith et al. 2000; Schaefer 2003; O Brien et al. 2006; Courtois et al. 2008; Fortin et al. 2008; Environment Canada 2011, Hervieux et al. 2013). Ultimately, caribou population size and resilience, 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 conservation habitat is considered to consist of an area: of suitable habitat (as defined by RWGs for current range condition) that is currently undisturbed or functional 22 ; note that undisturbed habitat should be considered more suitable than those areas which are disturbed by fire or more particularly human activity. that is disproportionately important for caribou (e.g., discrete calving areas, refuge habitat, other concentration areas, movement corridors, and other sites or areas identified by the RWG); and that is 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); intervening matrix has low mortality risk (Haynes and Cronin 2004); no known barriers to movement exist; size of the two patches is sufficiently large (larger patches assumed to improve connectivity potential; O Brien et al. 2006); connectivity is potentially inversely related to range disturbance (O Brien et al. 2006). Such areas of best conservation habitat should form the foundation (or core building blocks) for self-sustaining caribou populations in conservation plans (see section 3.3.1). The text box below provides examples of how Ontario and Alberta RWGs delineated best conservation habitat. 22 See description in section and McCutchen et al. (2009). 16

25 Best Conservation Habitat is an area: Northwestern Ontario 1 Northeastern Alberta 2...of suitable habitat that is currently undisturbed or functional suitable habitat not defined based on local habitat use by caribou or description of key vegetation communities or biophysical characteristics. calving areas mapped and identified. caribou range boundaries from Environment Canada (2011) adopted. 4 habitat classes aggregated from detailed Alberta Vegetation Inventory, and then ranked as potentially suitable habitat based on occurrence of caribou from telemetry points. areas of undisturbed or functional habitat defined by mapping disturbance metrics (i.e., human footprint, timber harvest areas, wildfires) following process developed for the Alberta Caribou Committee (McCutchen et al. 2009)....that is disproportionately important for caribou Areas of Interest for Conservation (AOICs) identified from Marxan analysis of hexagonal planning units (1000 ha in size); fine filter and coarse filter conservation values weighted equally and represented as spatial layers: fine filter (caribou calving areas, bald eagle nests and habitat, heronries (nesting colonies of herons), areas of local conservation importance, significant ecological areas); coarse filter (caribou range, conservation values index, lake trout lakes, ecological values index, landscape diversity, MNR common and rare gaps, source water protection areas, WWF-Canada enduring features gaps). all polygonal units within caribou range considered to represent equivalent caribou habitat. information from two decades of telemetry and local knowledge used to identify vegetation types most used by caribou. black spruce bogs and fens were the only vegetation type to be disproportionately used relative to its availability (i.e., they were selected by caribou). jackpine and low/tall shrub areas found in association with bog-fen areas also showed increased use, but the level of use was not disproportionate to its availability on the landscape....that is structurally and functionally connected with other areas of suitable habitat implications of increased connectivity and patch size of reserve areas (i.e., candidate caribou conservation areas) explored through Marxan analyses. the Boundary Length Modifier (BLM) in Marxan was varied to produce solutions that allowed scattered reserve distributions (this option would have a higher chance of meeting targets) and clumped solutions (optimal reserves for maintaining connectivity and large forest patches but possibly less chance of meeting biodiversity targets). additional work to demonstrate options that would maximize the fulfillment of targets with a varied distribution of reserve sizes. current areas with good caribou habitat and known caribou occupancy considered candidates for conservation areas. identification of candidate caribou conservation areas began with current human land use footprint and expanded to known and anticipated areas of industrial expansion. Caribou habitat considerations for these areas were threefold: 1) maintain large, contiguous patches of caribou habitat with no or minimal linear features; 2) avoid identified key habitat features at all times; and 3) promote coordinated restoration of access and historical industrial footprint. zonation approach developed that would apply forestry management actions (including multi-decadal deferrals) and recommended coordinated restoration and other management actions needed to minimize cumulative effects. implementation to occur through the forest management plan and the government range/action planning process. 1 Northwest Subcommittee of the Ontario Regional Working Group (ONRWG) Conservation planning in the Caribou, English River, Dog River-Matawin, and Black Spruce Forests in northwestern Ontario an ecological perspective. DRAFT 30 November pp. 2 Alberta Regional Working Group of the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement Recommendations and proposed contributions towards caribou conservation in northeastern Alberta: West Side of the Athabasca River, East Side of the Athabasca River and Cold Lake Caribou Ranges. DRAFT 19 December pp. 17

26 In some ranges, large functional or connected areas no longer exist, so the largest relatively undisturbed areas should be identified as best conservation 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 over multiple decades Other Risk Factors Other direct and indirect risk factors should be considered and discussed to make conservation plans comprehensive and transparent (Figures 1 and 3) and thus allow ecologically-based delineation of best conservation habitat to be translated into delineation of best conservation opportunities. Best conservation opportunities consider the factors below to identify the best opportunities for success given the RWG s understanding of future conditions and external influences on the areas of assessment and implementation. Other relevant risk factors include: the condition of adjacent caribou ranges as potential sources of caribou immigrants or enhanced risk (e.g., isolated ranges within a highly disturbed matrix have increased risk); the location of the range relative to the southern woodland caribou distribution boundary (e.g., closer equals higher risk of apparent competition, habitat loss, and climate-change related effects, and reduced ecosystem resilience); current knowledge base and monitoring (e.g., nonexistent or dated data may delay implementation and increase risk of extirpation); 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; acknowledgement of predator population management measures should be considered by the RWGs under such circumstances); and tenures and management/administrative boundaries that may influence the present and future condition of caribou range and any land use scenarios considered in future range condition analyses. 3.3 DEFINING MANAGEMENT MEASURES CBFA Proposed 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 & Time-bound) will provide a foundation to track implementation success and allow incorporation into an adaptive management framework (see section 3.3.3). Regional Working Groups should identify three management elements within an integrated forest management system: disturbance management thresholds; best management practices; and adaptive management measures Applying Disturbance Management 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 are used to help sustain or restore desired landscape conditions while still pursuing economic and social objectives. Explicit regional or sub-regional objectives (frequently called targets, thresholds, or triggers) can be used to inform decisionmaking on the regulation and assessment of individual activities or projects (Kennett 2006, Salmo Consulting Inc. 2006, Antoniuk et al. 2009, BC Oil and Gas Commission 2013, and see Johnson 2013). Total disturbance is a more robust predictor of the ability of a given range to support a sustainable boreal caribou population than is the amount of suitable habitat alone (Sorensen et al. 2008; ALT 2009; Dzus et al. 2010; Schneider et al. 2010; Environment Canada 2011). Disturbance management thresholds 23 thereby provide a tool to identify how much cumulative human disturbance poses a socially unacceptable risk to the persistence of a caribou population. 23 For boreal caribou, a disturbance management threshold marks the point below which (i.e., at lower levels of disturbance) range conditions are likely to meet the recovery goal with an acceptable level of risk, and above which the outcome is either highly uncertain or unacceptable (Environment Canada 2012, p. 66) 18

27 While the probability of caribou persistence is inversely related to combined total disturbance (i.e., natural and anthropogenic) in their range, there appears to be no absolute value that differentiates sustainable and unsustainable conditions across the boreal forest. In addition, the probability of caribou persistence cannot be quantitatively partitioned between direct and indirect effects of habitat disturbance. Caribou disturbance management thresholds must therefore be risk-based and reflect both current range conditions and anticipated future trends over at least 40 years. This time period is hypothesized to reflect the minimum time needed to restore functional habitat and allay the direct effects of disturbed habitat (Vors et al. 2007; ALT 2009). In contrast, the indirect effects of disturbance (e.g., provision of suitable habitat for other ungulates, or travel efficiency of predators) may be mitigated more quickly through direct management of wildlife populations, but adaptive management experiments and effectiveness monitoring are required to assess these relationships. The CBFA mandates delineation of disturbance management thresholds for the management of critical habitat for caribou. A starting point for RWG planning is to consider the boreal caribou disturbance management threshold of 35% total disturbance (or 65% undisturbed habitat) within a range as described by Environment Canada (2012). However, there are two important considerations in applying the disturbance management threshold: the threshold represents an average value from an analysis of 57 local populations of boreal caribou across Canada. Thus, even within local caribou ranges with 65% undisturbed habitat, there is inherent variability in the conditions that would support self-sustaining populations. the threshold is associated with a 0.6 or 60% probability of self-sustainability (i.e. where the population of caribou is more likely to be stable or increasing), which means that at the 35% total disturbance threshold value there is also a 40% chance that a given caribou population is declining. Thus, given the variability and uncertainty in the empirical relationship between total disturbance and population trend, application of the disturbance threshold needs to be considered carefully in the context of each planning area. The 65% disturbance threshold should not be automatically adopted in cases where an area of assessment is currently considered self-sustaining. Instead, RWGs should explore possibilities consistent with the CBFA twin pillars where more than 65% of undisturbed range can be conserved and caribou offered a better probability of maintaining this status. The challenge for RWGs is to identify an acceptable level of risk to caribou in each implementation area to maintain or enhance the probability of self-sustaining (and ideally resilient) local populations in the medium- to long-term, while enabling economic and social demands for forest products and other resources. An iterative, scenario based approach is also recommended to define management measures, as shown in Figure 3. While the ultimate responsibility lies with governments to manage cumulative disturbances with multiple industries on the same land base, CBFA Proposed Caribou Action Plans can propose disturbance management thresholds for areas or footprints within the area of implementation and within their sphere of influence, and 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. The most practical and effective approach to achieve 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 RWGs with a good opportunity to explicitly consider linkages and gaps with protected area planning efforts, as shown in Figure 1. 19

28 Figure 3. Components to be considered by regional working groups to develop conservation plan management measures. As noted previously, a common conclusion from virtually all boreal caribou studies is that large areas of continuous, relatively undisturbed, caribou habitat are preferred to landscape areas that are more disturbed (by either natural agents or, more particularly, human activity) (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 to maintain a self-sustaining local caribou population 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 multiple decades. Regional Working Groups may wish to consider both single zone and multi-zone forest management options to implement this lowest risk option. To date, all RWGs have adopted multi-zone options as the most appropriate approach. Multi-zone options typically include an integrated land management system designed to maintain a self-sustaining caribou population. Integrated systems often include one or more caribou conservation zones managed primarily for caribou sustainability along with one or more development zones managed to achieve economic benefits from industrial development. Special management zones managed as restricted development areas may also be included to reduce predation risk in, or improve connectivity between, caribou conservation zone(s). An integrated zoning system should be designed to maintain and restore caribou populations by: 20

29 1. Maintaining existing undisturbed habitat (to reduce uncertainty associated with site re-occupancy following disturbance and be consistent with a precautionary approach that minimizes risk to caribou). 2. Spatially aggregating human land use disturbance (to maintain undisturbed habitat elsewhere and concentrate predation risk). 3. Spatially aggregating conservation zones (to increase the size of contiguous suitable caribou habitat undisturbed by human activity, minimize predation risk within these areas, and maximize resilience to natural disturbance). 4. Spatially aggregating habitat restoration priority areas to build upon the zonation principles listed above. 5. Providing connectivity between conservation zones. Regional Working Groups should describe one or more recommended disturbance threshold and zonation options as part of the caribou action plan management measures section. At the heart of the CBFA is the concept of twin pillars in which the CBFA strives to set a global precedent for boreal forest conservation and forest sector competitiveness 24. This two-pronged approach striving for some degree of balance between socio-economic prosperity and ecological integrity necessitates that a socio-economic evaluation of the candidate zone and range disturbance threshold option(s) be conducted (see preamble to this framework and Figures 1 and 2). This will allow trade-offs between caribou extirpation risk and socio-economic values to be explicitly evaluated and discussed among CBFA signatories prior to making final recommendations Best Management Practices CBFA RWGs should include a discussion of best management practices for caribou conservation. Such best practices are frequently referenced in caribou action planning documents (e.g., ALT 2009) or are identified as strategies to be developed and implemented as part of provincial caribou action plans (e.g., OMNR 2009). Dzus et al. (2010) also provide guidance on science-based conservation measures. In a recent FPAC-sponsored report, it was noted that there has been no formal monitoring to evaluate the 24 See more at: 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 Proposed Caribou Action Plans and concentrate on those practices rated as being highly effective. Where possible, experimental designs should be set up to test and learn from (and document) the effectiveness of such practices (see adaptive management measures, below). Consideration should be given to practices that influence both habitat suitability and mortality risk. Implementation and effectiveness monitoring programs (sensu Bunnell and Dunsworth 2009) should be recommended to increase the likelihood that management practices are systematically evaluated as part of an adaptive management system. Appendix 5 provides a list of Best Management Practices for consideration. Regional Working Groups should select those most applicable to their area of assessment, and include factors such as cost and effectiveness. A suite of management measures and coordinated range restoration should be considered, recommended, implemented and evaluated to provide conservation benefits to caribou over both short- and long-term Adaptive Management and Integrated Decision Making As outlined in the CBFA Integration Framework 25 the CBFA methodological frameworks provide a blueprint for developing the scientific foundation required to support decision-making within the CBFA regarding Goals 2 and 3. The CBFA Integration Framework provides further guidance on the decision making process. Implementation of decisions made by CBFA parties will need to be set in the context of the regional landscape (ecological and socio-political implications). Kennett (2013) provided a variety of key factors that will increase the probability of transitioning from planning to decision making to implementation of collaborative strategies and actions: 25 Approved by the CBFA Steering Committee January 30,

30 Success depends on rigorous, defensible and transparent treatment of facts and values. Collaborative exploration of alternatives facilitates examination of tradeoffs and finding common ground. Authentic commitment to adaptive management (including effectiveness monitoring programs) can be key to reaching group consensus. Involvement of relevant interests increases probability of successful decision making and implementation. Figure 4 illustrates the interaction between planning and decision-making cycles that is inherent in the CBFA process. Figure 4. The interplay between planning and decision-making in the context of the CBFA. Collectively the interplay between planning and decision-making shown in Figure 4 embraces the concept of adaptive management. More specifically, the CBFA embraces active adaptive management in concert with the precautionary approach as principles to concurrently achieve high degrees of social and economic prosperity and high degrees of ecological integrity (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 controlled environment; (b) monitoring the alternative practices against both a 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, Pg. 5). In a recent report to 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) There 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; 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). 22

31 That said, CBFA signatories, and the CBFA Conservation Planning Team, are 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 Conservation Planning Team and Goal 2/3 national working group serving as a coordinating body. Such an approach would obviously require coordination and collaboration with a wide variety of other organizations. The CBFA Integrated Planning and Adaptive Management Framework should be consulted for general guidance. In addition, Johnson (1999) and Schreiber et al (2004) provide excellent reviews of adaptive management and are recommended reading for RWGs. 23

32 4. SUMMARY The Methodological Framework for Caribou Action Planning is a guiding document for CBFA RWG members and supporting planning practitioners. The framework was developed to help CBFA Proposed Caribou Action Plans meet a consistent and high standard of quality and completeness. The methodological framework recommends that boreal caribou management plans should: 1. Include an explicit conservation planning goal(s) and defining principles. 2. Use designated local population range as the foundation for defining the conservation planning area of assessment to be consistent with federal and provincial critical habitat guidance. Spatial buffers to incorporate predation risk from surrounding landscapes should be included; this may require evaluation of data from adjacent tenures and jurisdictions. 3. Evaluate the adequacy of existing government management and recovery plans using the evaluation tool included in Appendix 1. Note: this evaluation tool may also be used by the RWG to iteratively evaluate their own caribou action plan. 4. 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 comprehensive data to consider the influence of natural disturbance, all land uses, and current management policies on current mortality risk and habitat suitability (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 conservation habitat by considering the criteria provided here. Use these areas of best conservation habitat as the building blocks for caribou conservation zones. 8. Include a disturbance management threshold approach, considering the linked zone-total disturbance threshold integrated land management concepts and approaches provided in the framework. 9. Include recommendations for integrated land management system options and best management practices. 10. Identify implementation roles and responsibilities. 11. Include adaptive management provisions including monitoring of both implementation (Did we do what we said we would do?) and effectiveness (Did our implemented measures have the expected effect(s)?). 24

33 5. REFERENCES ALT (Athabasca Landscape Team) Athabasca caribou landscape management options report. Alberta Caribou Committee, Edmonton AB. Online [URL]: Caribou.pdf Alcomo, J Environmental Futures: The Practice of Environmental Scenario Analysis. Elsevier: Amsterdam. 224 pages. Antoniuk, T., T. Raabis, B. Culling, D., 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 Online [URL]: Antoniuk, T., L. McNeil, J. Nishi, and K. Manuel Caribou protection and recovery program: Technical guidance. Prepared for Oil Sands Leadership Initiative, Land Stewardship Working Group by Salmo Consulting Inc., McNeil Consulting, EcoBorealis Consulting, and K. Manuel Consulting Inc. Online [URL]: salmoconsulting.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/caribou-protection-and-recovery-program-2012.pdf Bastille-Rousseau, G., D. Fortin, and C. Dussault Inference from habitat selection analysis depends on foraging strategies. Journal of Animal Ecology. 79: BC Oil and Gas Commission Area-Based Analysis: Overview. Online [URL]: node/8254/download Beguin, J., E. J. B. McIntire, D. Fortin, S. G. Cumming, F. Raulier, P. Racine, and C. Dussault Explaining geographic gradients in winter selection of landscapes by boreal caribou with implications under global changes in eastern Canada. PLOS One 8:e Bergerud, A.T., R.D. Jakimchuk, and D.R. Carruthers The buffalo of the North: Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) and human developments. Arctic. 37: Boreal Caribou Committee (BCC) Strategic plan and industrial guidelines for boreal caribou ranges in Northern Alberta. 35 pages. 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: Bull, K.R An introduction to critical loads. Environmental Pollution. 77: Bunnell, F. L., and G. B. Dunsworth Forestry and Biodiversity: Learning How to Sustain Biodiversity in Managed Forests. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC. CBFA Signatories The Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement: An Historic Agreement Signifying a New Era of Joint Leadership in the Boreal Forest. 10 May Online [URL]: com/index.php/en/why-its-important 25

34 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., J.-P. Ouellet, L. Breton, A. Gingras, and C. Dussault Effects of forest disturbance on density, space use, and mortality of woodland caribou. Ecoscience. 14: 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: Culling, D., B. Culling, R. Backmeyer, and T. Antoniuk Interim Oil and Gas Industry Guidelines for Boreal Caribou Ranges in Northeastern British Columbia. Report prepared for Oil and Gas Commission, Fort St. John, BC. 31 pages + attachments. 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 FSC Canada. Online [URL]: Elkie P., K. Green, G. Racey, M. Gluck, J. Elliott, G. Hooper, R. Kushneriuk and R. Rempel, Science and information in support of policies that address the conservation of woodland caribou in Ontario: Occupancy, habitat and disturbance models, estimates of natural variation and range level summaries. Electronic Document. Version Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Forests Branch Environment Canada Scientific Review for the Identification of Critical Habitat for Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada, August Environment Canada. Environment Canada Scientific Assessment to Inform the Identification of Critical Habitat for Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada: 2011 Update. Environment Canada Recovery strategy for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal population, in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fahrig, L How much habitat is enough? Biological Conservation. 100: Festa-Bianchet, M., J. C. Ray, S. Boutin, S. D. Cote, and A. Gunn Conservation of caribou (Rangifer tarandus) in Canada: an uncertain future. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 89:

35 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. Online [URL]: fpac.ca/publications/fpa-14505_caribou_recovery_en_hr1-2013_.pdf Ghani, A. C., N. M. Ferguson, C. A. Donnelly, T. J. Hagenaars, and R. M. Anderson Epidemiological determinants of the pattern and magnitude of the vcjd epidemic in Great Britain. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 265: Glick, P., B.A. Stein, and N.A. Edelson, editors Scanning the Conservation Horizon: A Guide to Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C. Online [URL]: noaa.gov/pdf/scanning_the_conservation_horizon.pdf Golder Associates Audit of operating practices and mitigation measures employed within woodland caribou ranges. Report prepared for the Caribou Landscape Management Association. 159 pages. Golder (Golder Associates Ltd.) Caribou Habitat Restoration Pilot Study. Submitted to: ConocoPhillips Canada, Suncor Energy, and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. 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: Hervieux, D., M. Hebblewhite, N. J. DeCesare, M. Russell, K. Smith, S. Robertson, and S. Boutin Widespread declines in woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) continue in Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 91: Holling, C. S Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 4: 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. Online [URL]: Johnson, C. J Identifying ecological thresholds for regulating human activity: Effective conservation or wishful thinking? Biological Conservation. 168: Kennett, S From science-based thresholds to regulatory limits: Implementation issues for cumulative effects management. Prepared for Environment Canada, Northern by Canadian Institute of Resources Law, Calgary. Online [URL]: pdf. Kennett, S Implementation realities. Invited presentation to CBFA Action Planning Workshop, Edmonton, Alberta, February 26,

36 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. Latham, A.D.M., M.C. Latham, N.A. McCutchen, and S. Boutin Invading white-tailed deer change wolfcaribou dynamics in northeastern Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management. 75: Lee, P., M. Hanneman, J. Gysbers, R. Cheng, and W. Smith Atlas of Canada s intact forest landscapes. Online [URL]: Lesmerises, R., J-P. Ouellet, and M-H. St-Laurent Assessing terrestrial lichen biomass using ecoforet 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: 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. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) Ecosystems and Human Well-being A Framework for Assessment. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 212 pages. 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: Moss, R. H., J. A. Edmonds, K. A. Hibbard, M. R. Manning, S. K. Rose, D. P. van Vuuren, T. R. Carter, S. Emori, M. Kainuma, T. Kram, G. A. Meehl, J. F. B. Mitchell, N. Nakicenovic, K. Riahi, S. J. Smith, R. J. Stouffer, A. M. Thomson, J. P. Weyant, and T. J. Wilbanks The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature. 463: 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. 24 Pp. Online [URL]: Pereira, H. M., P. W. Leadley, V. Proença, R. Alkemade, J. P. W. Scharlemann, J. F. Fernandez-Manjarrés, M. B. Araújo, P. Balvanera, R. Biggs, W. W. L. Cheung, L. Chini, H. D. Cooper, E. L. Gilman, S. Guénette, G. C. Hurtt, H. P. Huntington, G. M. Mace, T. Oberdorff, C. Revenga, P. Rodrigues, R. J. Scholes, U. R. Sumaila, and M. Walpole Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science. 330: Racey, G., A. Harris, L. Gerrish, E. Armstrong, J. McNicol, and J. Baker Forest management guidelines for the conservation of woodland caribou: a landscape approach. MS draft. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Thunder Bay, Ontario. 69 pages. 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. Online [URL]: Schaefer, J.A Long-term range recession and the persistence of caribou in the taiga. Conservation Biology. 17:

37 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., 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: 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: Online [URL]: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/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 clear-cut 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: Stevenson, S. K., H. M. Armleder, M. J. Jull, D. G. King, B. N. McLellan, and D. S. Coxson Mountain caribou in managed forests: Recommendations for Managers. 2nd Edition. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks Wildlife Branch, Victoria, B.C. Wildlife Report No. R-26. Strittholt, J.R. and S. J. Leroux A methodological framework for protected areas 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. Online [URL]: canadianborealforestagreement.com/publications/cbfaprotectedareas_guidelines_en1.pdf Swart, R. J., P. Raskin, and J. Robinson The problem of the future: sustainability science and scenario analysis. Global Environmental Change. 14: 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. Edmonton, AB. United Nations (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) Final Declaration, Principle 15. Rio De Janeiro.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: West-Central Alberta Caribou Standing Committee (WCACSC) Operating guidelines for industrial activity in caribou ranges in West Central Alberta. 13 pages. Williamson, T.B.; Campagna, M.A.; Ogden, A.E Adapting sustainable forest management to climate change: a framework for assessing vulnerability and mainstreaming adaptation into decision making. Can. Counc. For. Minist., Ottawa, ON. Online [URL]: APPENDIX 1 29

38 APPENDICES 30

39 APPENDIX 1 - TEMPLATE FOR ASSESSING THE ADEQUACY OF GOVERNMENT RANGE/ACTION PLANS OR CBFA PROPOSED CARIBOU ACTION PLANS. 1. Action/Conservation Planning Goal & Principles Not Applicable Inadequate Adequate Exemplary Gap or Comment Is the conservation planning goal consistent with the achievement of self-sustaining caribou populations within the area of assessment or area of implementation? Does the conservation planning goal address restoration and maintenance of caribou habitat? Are the stated principles consistent with the CBFA? Are appropriate spatial and temporal scales considered 2. Review of Existing Management Policies Not Applicable Inadequate Adequate Exemplary Gap or Comment Are existing provincial land use policies consistent with the stated caribou action planning goals? Are the existing forest management planning documents of the CBFA industry signatory consistent with CBFA Proposed Caribou Action Plan goals? Do provincial policies adequately address cumulative effects as they relate to caribou conservation? Are there any specific policy changes that should be recommended to improve overall alignment with recommended caribou conservation and recovery actions in the area of assessment or area of implementation? Are both habitat suitability (quantity, quality and spatial configuration) and mortality risk addressed?

40 3. Assessment Area Identification & Range Condition Evaluation (Current & Future) Not Applicable Inadequate Adequate Exemplary Gap or Comment Is the assessment area defined to sufficiently incorporate predator-prey dynamics in the regions? Does the plan have comprehensive data sets defining existing tenures and administrative / planning units that affect land use patterns and management actions? Is caribou habitat suitability defined and spatially delineated? Does the plan have comprehensive spatial data sets identifying land use intensity? Does the plan have comprehensive spatial data sets of natural disturbances? Does the plan have comprehensive datasets summarizing caribou population size, distribution, population trend, areas with elevated mortality, and unique or sensitive features? Does the plan have datasets of predator distribution and density? Does the plan have datasets relating to other prey distribution and density? Does the plan present plausible scenarios of future land use, natural disturbance, and climate change? Are the land use scenarios adequately linked to indicators of habitat suitability and/or caribou demographics? Does the plan adequately identify best conservation habitat? Does the plan define critical habitat in a manner consistent with Environment Canada (2008, 2011)? 32

41 4. Defining Management Measures Not Applicable Inadequate Adequate Exemplary Gap or Comment Does the plan apply disturbance thresholds in a meaningful and testable fashion? If the plan utilizes a land zonation approach, does it adequately incorporate disturbance thresholds? Does the plan identify areas for protection through systematic conservation planning that have important caribou values? Does the plan provide tenure specific analysis to forest companies signatory to the CBFA and/or regional working groups to support their efforts to meet Goal 3 and certification requirements? Are best management practices for caribou conservation adequately identified? Does the plan outline population management and monitoring measures for predators and other prey? Does the plan outline an adaptive management program to adequately monitor and assess implementation of objectives? Does the plan outline an adaptive management program with associated monitoring actions to adequately assess effectiveness of implementation objectives? Does the plan identify key drivers of cumulative effects on boreal caribou in the implementation area and provide clear and effective strategies for managing those effects? Are there management measures recommended for other species that would be contradictory to management measures for caribou? If so, are trade-offs and consequences adequately discussed to make an informed decision? How has the plan assessed climate change vulnerability of recommended management measures? 33

42 5. Engagement and Collaboration With Others Not Applicable Inadequate Adequate Exemplary Gap or Comment Does the plan identify engagement/ collaboration strategies for territorial and provincial government agencies responsible for caribou conservation? Does the plan identify engagement/ collaboration strategies for territorial and provincial government agencies responsible for land use / cumulative effects? Does the plan identify engagement/ collaboration strategies for Aboriginal peoples? Does the plan identify engagement/ collaboration strategies for overlapping tenure holders? 6. Socio-Economic Assessment Not Applicable Inadequate Adequate Exemplary Gap or Comment Has the plan adequately incorporated assessment of the socio-economic impact of identified management measures? Are socio-economic / ecological trade-offs identified or discussed among alternative management measures? 34

43 APPENDIX 2. GLOSSARY adaptive management a structured, iterative process of optimal decision making in the face of uncertainty, with an aim to reducing uncertainty over time through prior formulation of objectives and hypotheses (i.e., assumptions), followed by systematic monitoring and revision of management based on the monitoring results. In this way, management decisions and actions are structured as experiments to facilitate learning by doing. apparent competition an indirect competitive interaction between two (or more) species that are preyed upon by the same predator. For example, boreal caribou may decline or become extirpated via predator pit dynamics, which is an outcome of predator (enemy)-mediated apparent competition in which wolves or other predators increase in numbers because of an increase in primary and alternate prey (i.e., moose, white-tailed deer, and/or beaver). As predator density increases, the spatial separation strategy used by caribou becomes less effective; through incidental predation, the larger predator population drives a decline in the caribou population. area of assessment the broader ecological area where protected areas and caribou action planning analysis is conducted. Area of assessment should be based on broad ecological considerations and therefore the extent of this area may vary considerably, depending on the context. To be consistent with Environment Canada s recovery strategy and the 2011 critical habitat science review, the local population range provided by provincial and territorial jurisdictions should be used as the foundation for defining the area of assessment. area of implementation the area within tenure boundaries where detailed recommendations are made and where CBFA signatory companies can most directly take action. Regional variation in caribou ecology as well as socio-political considerations will also need to be factored into the identification of the implementation area boundaries. area of influence an area larger than the Area of Implementation but smaller than the Area of Assessment (outside versus inside tenure issue), where forest companies signatory to the CBFA may have an ability to influence outcomes beyond CBFA signatory tenures, but which do not cover the entire Area of Assessment. best current habitat areas of suitable caribou habitat in each range where probability of caribou persistence is enhanced. These have the following attributes: larger (ideally >5,000 km2, but no smaller than 50 km2); more continuous habitat; less current human footprint; lower perimeter to edge ratio; and further from predator source habitat. Typically consists of mainly undisturbed habitat. best conservation habitat areas of suitable caribou habitat (some combination of best current and best future habitat) in each range where projected probability of caribou persistence is enhanced. These have the following attributes: larger (ideally >5,000 km2, but no smaller than 50 km2); more continuous habitat; less current human footprint; lower perimeter to edge ratio; further from predator source habitat ; and low potential for competing human uses. Typically consists of a combination of undisturbed and disturbed habitat. best future habitat areas where future landscape scenario projections completed by RWG suggest that habitat suitability (and presumably functional habitat) can most likely be maintained or restored. biophysical attributes the habitat characteristics required by boreal caribou to carry out life processes necessary for survival and recovery (Environment Canada 2012). boreal caribou woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) boreal populations, as designated by Environment Canada (2008). 35

44 buffer habitat Based on Environment Canada (2011), this component of disturbed habitat includes areas within 500 m of linear and polygonal features, where these do not overlap with burned, lost, or altered habitat. Environment Canada (2011) found that a 500 m buffer best represents the combined effects of increased predation and avoidance on caribou population results at the national scale. burned habitat Based on Environment Canada (2011), this component of disturbed habitat includes areas burned within the last 40 years. caribou conservation zone areas where caribou conservation would be the designated and enforceable land use priority. These need to be of sufficient size (ideally tens of thousands of square kilometres) to recover and sustain a caribou sub-population. In these areas, existing land use footprints would be restored and future land use footprint restricted to very low levels or no anthropogenic disturbance, concurrent with continuous predator control (where required) until functional habitat is restored. CBFA Proposed Caribou Action Plan a caribou action plan that has been developed between ENGOs and forest industry signatories to the CBFA under Goal 3, Section 8(f) of the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement. connectivity connectivity refers to the degree to which a landscape facilitates or impedes movement of organisms among habitat patches. Structural connectivity is linkage of habitat patches by physical adjacency. Functional connectivity is linkage by processes that depend on species dispersal and movement behaviour such as reluctance to cross areas of unsuitable habitat (O Brien et al. 2006). For caribou, extensive movements and large home range sizes are adaptations to reduce mortality risk, and thus the connectivity of large suitable habitat patches is assumed to be an important attribute of suitable habitat (Bergerud et al. 1984; Courtois et al. 2008). conservation actions conservation actions for caribou action planning include measures for both protection and management. Protection measures relate primarily to habitat conservation (e.g., long-term deferrals and new protected areas), while management measures can include a suite of habitat or population-based activities. The mandate for habitat-management measures is shared by forest product companies, other tenure holders (e.g., oil and gas sector), governments (provincial, federal, and /or Aboriginal), and other land users (e.g., recreational users). Population management measures are the direct mandate of provincial/territorial governments (possibly in collaboration with Aboriginal governments). critical habitat The habitat that is necessary to maintain or recover self-sustaining local boreal caribou populations throughout their distribution (Environment Canada 2012). Further defined by Environment Canada (2012) to include the area within the boundary of each caribou range that provides an overall ecological condition that will allow for an ongoing recruitment and retirement cycle of habitat, which maintains a perpetual state of a minimum of 65% of the area as undisturbed habitat; and ii) biophysical attributes required by boreal caribou to carry out life processes. disturbance threshold technically- or socially-based management standards that identify the point at which an indicator changes from an acceptable to an unacceptable condition, similar to an arbitrary speed limit. The term threshold is problematic because it is also used to describe a point where: 1) a detectable effect occurs (e.g., Bull 1992); 2) a dramatic shift in ecological response occurs (e.g., Fahrig 2001); or 3) a point between alternate regimes in ecological or social-ecological systems (e.g., Holling 1973). disturbed habitat - Based on Environment Canada (2012), this includes critical caribou habitat within a boreal caribou range that has been directly or indirectly lost, altered, or degraded by natural processes and human activity. Includes burned habitat, lost habitat, altered habitat, and buffer habitat as defined in the glossary. Current disturbed/ undisturbed status of each range described in Environment Canada (2012) reflects visibility from 2010 Landsat imagery at a scale of 1:50,

45 ecosystem resilience the capacity of an ecosystem to tolerate disturbance without collapsing into a qualitatively different state that is controlled by a different set of processes. A resilient ecosystem can withstand shocks and rebuild itself when necessary. Resilience in social systems has the added capacity of humans to anticipate and plan for the future. Humans are part of the natural world. We depend on ecological systems for our survival and we continuously impact the ecosystems in which we live from the local to global scale. Resilience is a property of these linked social-ecological systems (SES). Resilience as applied to ecosystems, or to integrated systems of people and the natural environment, has three defining characteristics: 1) the amount of change the system can undergo and still retain the same controls on function and structure; 2) the degree to which the system is capable of self-organization; and 3) the ability to build and increase the capacity for learning and adaptation. functional habitat habitat that provides biophysical attributes required by boreal caribou (Environment Canada 2012), is sufficiently old to provide winter forage 26, has comparatively small areas of young forest 27 and disturbed habitat (i.e., linear and polygonal features), and is of sufficient size 28 to provide caribou with opportunities to space away from predators. Identification of functional habitat is based on explicit evaluation of habitat suitability. habitat alteration (altered habitat) Based on Environment Canada (2012), this component of disturbed habitat includes areas affected by visible, non-permanent linear and polygonal features, where these do no overlap with burned or lost habitat. Examples include: timber harvest areas, trails, seismic lines, pipelines, hydroelectric corridors, and well pads. Assumed management direction is that altered habitat within boreal caribou ranges will be returned to conditions suitable for caribou at some time in future. (see also habitat loss). habitat loss (lost habitat) Based on Environment Canada (2012), this component of disturbed habitat includes linear and polygonal features permanently disturbed by human land use with no immediate or long-term future value to boreal caribou. Examples include: conversion to agriculture, paved roads, and industrial facilities. May also occur where there is no management intention to return the habitat to conditions suitable for caribou at some time in future. habitat restoration Habitat restoration is the product of reforestation (or other reclamation activities) and indicates return of habitat to a state suitable for caribou use and reduced mortality risk, comparable to that which existed prior to disturbance. Reforestation is the act of planting trees or ensuring re-growth of trees and vegetative succession after a disturbance. habitat suitability caribou habitat availability, habitat quality, and spatial configuration at a specified point in time. indirect disturbance (buffer habitat) Based on Environment Canada (2012), this includes areas within 500 m of linear and polygonal features, where these do not overlap with burned, lost, or altered habitat. Environment Canada (2011) found that a 500 m buffer best represents the combined effects of increased predation and avoidance on caribou population results at the national scale. indirect predation risk landscape conditions in habitat that is not used by caribou may affect primary prey (moose, deer, beaver) and predator abundance; these predators can move into caribou range or calving areas, thereby increasing predation risk (James et al. 2004; Culling et al. 2006; Latham 2009). lambda (λ) The finite rate of population increase (also termed the growth multiplier) is equal to the ratio of population size in two successive years. The Greek symbol lambda (λ) is used to represent the finite rate of increase. Thus, λ = (Nt +1)/Nt, where Nt is the population size at time (t). When λ is greater than 1 the population has increased between successive years, when less than 1 the population has declined, and when equal to 1 the population is stable. For boreal caribou populations, λ is often estimated from annual 26 as defined by each RWG using the criteria provided earlier in section as defined by each RWG using the criteria provided earlier in section as defined by each RWG. 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) 37

46 recruitment of females (R, assuming a 50:50 sex ratio in calf production and equal survival of sexes to time of census) and annual adult female mortality (M) obtained from both natural and known human-caused sources. The formula to calculate the finite rate of increase from those population parameters is: λ = (1 M)/(1 R) (Hatter and Bergerud 1991). local population A group of caribou occupying a government-defined range area. Local populations experience limited exchange of individuals with other groups, such that population dynamics are driven primarily by local factors affecting birth and death rates, rather than immigration or emigration among groups (Environment Canada 2008, 2011). mortality risk includes combined risk of mortality from predation, legal and illegal harvest, disease and parasites, vehicle collisions, and natural causes. precautionary approach as defined in the CBFA, means that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. precautionary principle In the context of environmental decision-making, the precautionary principle encourages policies that protect human and ecosystem health and the environment in the face of uncertain risks. One of the first well-recognized articulations of the precautionary principle was made in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (United Nations, 1992), which stated the following: Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. Thus in developing caribou action plans, Regional Working Groups should not let uncertainty delay action and a precautionary approach should guide decisions when developing management options. range A geographic area occupied by individuals of a local population that are subjected to the same influences affecting vital rates over a defined time frame. Range is a function of both spatial extent and habitat conditions (Environment Canada 2008). range condition includes current and future habitat suitability and mortality risk refuge habitat 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. Species at Risk Act (SARA) federal legislation passed in 2002, with the purpose of preventing Canadian indigenous species, subspecies, and distinct populations from becoming extirpated or extinct, and to provide for the recovery of endangered or threatened species, and encourage the management of other species to prevent them from becoming at risk ( self-sustaining A local population of boreal caribou that on average demonstrates stable or positive population growth (λ 1.0) over the short term, and is large enough to withstand stochastic events and persist over the long-term, without the need for ongoing intensive management intervention (e.g., predator management or transplants from other populations) (Environment Canada 2008). suitable caribou habitat habitat with the biophysical attributes required by boreal caribou to carry out life processes necessary for survival and recovery (see Appendix H in Environment Canada (2012)). Suitable caribou habitat may or may not be considered to be functional caribou habitat depending on its size and spatial configuration at a particular point in time. undisturbed habitat - Based on Environment Canada (2012), this includes areas within the boundary of each boreal caribou range that have not been disturbed by natural processes or human activity (i.e., all components of disturbed habitat including burned habitat, lost habitat, altered habitat, and buffer habitat as defined in the glossary). 38

47 APPENDIX 3. DATA SOURCES FOR CURRENT RANGE CONDITION ANALYSES. Metric Intact forest Data Sources Notes Administrative Units Habitat Suitability Designated caribou range(s) boundary(s) Forest Management Unit boundaries Provincial boundaries CBFA Region and Protected Area boundaries Vegetation classification and physical features inventory Forest seral stage/age Burned areas and date of burn Vegetation types for recent burns Caribou habitat quality ratings by vegetation type and seral stage/age Sensitive and unique caribou habitat (refuge habitat and core areas) Other prey habitat quality ratings by vegetation type and seral stage/age Predator habitat quality ratings by vegetation type and seral stage/age GIS data from provincial, territorial, or federal wildlife manager(s) GIS data from regulator or FMU holder. Canadian Geopolitical Boundaries dataset from GeoBase. GIS data from CBFA, and geospatial data for protected areas from provincial, territorial, or federal governments. Geospatial data (vector or raster format) from provincial, territorial, or federal land manager(s) or forest management company. Geospatial data for water features may need to be added from a different source depending on the detail required. GIS data or age structure by forest type from provincial, territorial, or federal land manager(s) or forest management company. GIS shapefiles from federal, provincial, territorial, or FMU holder databases. Taken from vegetation and physical features (land cover) inventory or expert opinion. Published literature, Habitat Suitability Indices, or expert opinion. Published literature or expert opinion. Published literature, Habitat Suitability Indices, or expert opinion. Published literature, Habitat Suitability Indices, or expert opinion. Reference to designated boundaries will be required even where refined range analyses are completed. Needed for implementation planning and future land use forecasts. Needed for implementation planning and SARA reporting. Needed for implementation planning and CBFA reporting. Includes forest and non-forest vegetation types, non-vegetated types (rock, ice, sand dunes); rivers, lakes, reservoirs. Needed to identify forest of sufficient age (>50-80 years) to provide caribou habitat and young forest (<30-50 years) most suitable for other prey. Needed to identify naturally disturbed areas of unsuitable caribou habitat that contribute to indirect mortality risk. This dataset can also be used to estimate fire return interval. Needed to simulate future habitat suitability as burned areas are revegetated. Used to develop relative rating of caribou habitat under current range composition and conditions. Used to identify best available habitat important for self-sustaining caribou populations. Used to develop relative rating of habitat for other prey under current range composition and conditions. Used to develop relative rating of predator habitat under current range composition and conditions. 29 For geospatial data, the scale/size of the study will influence the scale/resolution of the data required. Some examples of data sources have been provided, but may not be appropriate for all study areas; a GIS specialist, as part of the project team, would be able to evaluate specific data suitability. 39

48 Intact forest Global Forest Watch Canada GIS data (Lee et al. 2010) Source of information on best available habitat. Land use features buffered by 500 to 1000 m. Timber harvest area boundaries; clearing date; reforestation trajectory and current status GIS shapefiles from FMU holders or land managers Needed to calculate current and future area of young forest. Inblock road centreline and width; construction date; revegetation trajectory and current status GIS shapefiles from FMU holders or land managers. Needed to calculate current and future area of young forest, revegetation rates, and linear corridor density. Anthropogenic Land use Non-forestry clearing boundaries; construction date; revegetation trajectory and current status GIS shapefiles from government (federal, provincial, territorial, First Nation), FMU holders or private data contractors. An example of data with national coverage CanVec (Natural Resources Canada) available from GeoGratis Includes all clearings: agricultural, community and residential; industrial facilities; recreational facilities; exploration wells; production and injection wells; mine sites and processing facilities Linear corridor centreline and width; construction date; revegetation trajectory and current status GIS shapefiles from government (federal, provincial, territorial, First Nation), FMU holders or private data contractors. An example of data with national coverage - National Road Network available from GeoBase Includes all corridors: major and minor roads, vehicle trails, OHV trails, recreational trails, seismic lines, cut lines, railways, electrical transmission lines, pipelines. Vegetation types underlying land use features Taken from vegetation and physical features inventory or expert opinion. Needed to simulate future habitat suitability as land use features (i.e., footprints) revegetate. Caribou distribution, abundance, and demographics. Obtained from provincial, territorial, or federal wildlife manager(s) and relevant research. Spatially-explicit density and demographic data are preferred. Historical trend data are useful. Predator distribution, abundance, and demographics. Obtained from provincial, territorial, or federal wildlife manager(s) and relevant research. Spatially-explicit density and demographic data are preferred. Historical trend data are useful. Mortality Risk Other prey distribution, abundance, and demographics. Obtained from provincial, territorial, or federal wildlife manager(s) and relevant research. Spatially-explicit density and demographic data are preferred. Historical trend data are useful. Sport, subsistence, and illegal harvest rates. Obtained from provincial, territorial, or federal wildlife manager(s) and relevant research. Spatially-explicit harvest data are preferred. Historical trend data are useful. Mortality data from telemetry studies. Obtained from provincial, territorial, or federal wildlife manager(s) and relevant research. Identify annual rates of different mortality sources. Historical trend data are useful. Other Factors Range location relative to geographic distribution. Caribou meta-population status and immigration potential from adjacent ranges and landscapes. Use existing caribou geographic distribution from EC (2008). Obtained from provincial, territorial, or federal wildlife manager(s) and relevant research. Overall risk is inversely related to distance from the southern edge of boreal caribou distribution. Range-specific risk increases if range is isolated or adjacent to highly modified landscapes. 40

49 APPENDIX 4. DATA SOURCES FOR FUTURE RANGE CONDITION ANALYSES. Metric Variable Data Sources Notes Disturbance Land use Simulations Natural fire rate and size class distribution Insect infestation rate and size class distribution Avalanche rate and size class distribution Natural postdisturbance successional trajectories. Average annual forest harvest volume or harvest volume scenario. Volume/area relationship by forest type and seral stage Volume/in-block road length relationship Timber harvest area and in-block road reclamation trajectories Average annual oil and gas footprint area added or footprint growth scenario Average annual mining footprint area added or footprint growth scenario Average annual energy footprint area added or footprint growth scenario Average annual agricultural footprint area added or footprint growth scenario Average annual human settlement footprint area added or footprint growth scenario GIS shapefiles from federal, provincial, territorial, or FMU holder databases or relevant research from region. GIS shapefiles from federal, provincial, territorial, or FMU holder databases or relevant research from region. GIS shapefiles from federal, provincial, territorial, or FMU holder databases or relevant research from region. Relevant research from FMU holder, government, or academia. Based on resource availability, published plans of FMU holder, or expert opinion. Based on resource availability, published plans of FMU holder, or expert opinion. Based on resource availability, published plans of FMU holder, or expert opinion. Based on resource availability, published plans of FMU holder, or expert opinion. Based on resource availability, published plans, or expert opinion. Based on resource availability, published plans, or expert opinion. Based on resource availability, published plans, or expert opinion. Based on provincial or territorial databases, published plans or expert opinion. Based on provincial or territorial databases, published municipal/ urban development plans or expert opinion based on historic growth patterns and published findings. Needed to forecast natural rates of habitat alteration at range scale (i.e., fire return interval). Needed to forecast natural rates of habitat alteration at range scale. Needed to forecast natural rates of habitat alteration at range scale. Required for each vegetation type. Includes harvest area by forest type and seral stage. Used to develop forest harvesting trajectories. Used to develop forest harvesting trajectories. Used to simulate construction and reclamation rates of roads on forested land base. Includes clearings, roads, wells, corridors, reservoirs for conventional oil, conventional gas; bitumen, unconventional gas (e.g., shale gas), unconventional oil (e.g., carbonate). Includes: gravel, mineral, uranium, coal, bitumen, peat mines and facilities; roads, exploration camps; bitumen tailings ponds. Includes facilities and plants (hydroelectric, wind, nuclear, and hydrocarbon) wells (exploration, production, injection, and water), pipelines, transmission lines, roads, and reservoirs. Includes cropland, grazing rangeland, farms, ranches, livestock production/ processing facilities. Includes cities, towns, rural residential, cabins. 41

50 Land use Simulations (cont.) Average annual transportation footprint area added or footprint growth scenario Reclamation trajectories for each linear corridor and clearing type Based on provincial or territorial databases, published municipal/ urban development plans or expert opinion based on historic growth patterns and published findings. Based on resource availability, published plans of FMU holder, or expert opinion. Includes major highways, minor roads, railways. Used to simulate linear corridor densities and disturbed areas in assessment area. Fire suppression rate and size distribution Based on provincial or territorial fire management agencies, published plans of FMU holder, or expert opinion. Influences simulated rates of burned areas in assessment area. Projected influence on natural fire rate Based on relevant scientific research results. Used to simulate fire return intervals in scenarios of climate change. Climate Change Projected influence on vegetation growth and successional trajectory Based on relevant scientific research results. Used to simulate rates for revegetation and succession scenarios of climate change. 42

51 APPENDIX 5. DEVELOPMENT OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR REGIONAL WORKING GROUPS Contributed by Paula Bentham and Wayne Thorpe Regional Working Groups (RWGs) will need to review national and regional/provincial documentation relating to best management practices when developing CBFA Proposed Caribou Action Plans. Caribou action plans need to consider best management practices for caribou conservation, and should focus on those best practices that are considered effective for minimizing footprint and influencing habitat supply within caribou ranges, as well as for influencing mortality risk and human use. Over the years a large number of best management practices (BMPs) have been developed to mitigate the impacts of industrial development on caribou and other resource values (e.g., BCC 2001, Culling et al. 2004, Racey et al. 1999, Stevenson et al. 2001, WCACSC 1996) (a summary is provided in Golder Associates (2007)). In an effort to sustain industrial activity on caribou ranges while attempting to ensure the integrity and supply of caribou habitat, best practices have historically been applied on an individual basis, and have continued to be referenced as part of provincial caribou planning efforts (e.g., OMNR 2009). Most of these best practices have not been evaluated for effectiveness, and over the years have been questioned for their actual benefit to caribou. In an effort to determine the value of best practices to caribou conservation, the Caribou Landscape Management Association (CLMA) and the Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC) facilitated an audit of mitigation measures and operating practices employed for woodland caribou (Golder Associates 2007). Fifty-one experts from the energy sector in Western Canada, forestry sector across Canada, provincial government, consultants and academics were interviewed between 2004 and 2006 to obtain information regarding the use, efficacy and monitoring of caribou operating practices. Results were synthesized in a literature review and used to develop a preliminary effectiveness assessment of best practices. Best practices and mitigation measures were assessed for effectiveness on an individual basis and not as a combination of measures or within the context of measures integrated within an overall landscape plan. The audit of operating practices and mitigation highlighted four key messages. 1. Despite having a large number (over 70+) of operating practices and mitigation measures applied within woodland caribou ranges over the past 15+ years, woodland caribou population numbers are still declining. Blanket prescriptive operating practices are applied on an individual basis, rather than integrated into an overall landscape plan or adaptive management plan. 2. Even though operating practices and mitigation measures have been used for a long time, there has been no monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of these measures in terms of their value for achieving caribou recovery goals. 3. Given the lack of monitoring and the importance of monitoring, the audit was inconclusive when ranking the effectiveness of mitigation and operating practices. 4. Although the ranking of effectiveness of mitigation and operating practices was inconclusive, it was suggested that with limited time and resources, managers could focus an adaptive management plan and experimental trials around those measures rated as being highly effective, such as minimizing development footprints and subsequently reducing the need for future restoration work, coordination and integration of resource sectors to minimize cumulative effects (i.e., Integrated Landscape Management (ILM); Industrial Access Corridor Plans such as the Government of Alberta IL where there was an 44.5% overall reduction in the amount of identified road in comparison to an uncoordinated approach), maintaining caribou habitat supply (e.g., through deferrals, maintenance of large contiguous patches of caribou habitat with patch sizes, shape, and distribution to be reflective of caribou habitat supply) and restoring capable habitat to more suitable habitat conditions (e.g., through strategies such as mounding to support tree seedling growth, tree planting, fertilizer treatments, slash rollback, and tree felling for physical blockage of access into previously restored areas). 43

52 Innovative and additional BMPs from the Golder Associates (2007) mitigation audit were discussed at the CBFA Conservation Planning Workshop held February 26 to 28, CBFA Regional Working Group members and experts discussed how to include BMPs within caribou action planning. A BMP Toolbox and proposed BMP conservation planning process are provided below. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES TOOLBOX Best Management Practices for RWGs to consider should include strategic, tactical and operational BMPs. The BMPs should also consider the management objectives for each area within a range or land use planning area (e.g., if a zonation approach is used, BMPs will vary across each zone). The known or perceived effectiveness of caribou BMPs should be weighed against their costs to ensure that the BMPs, as considered within conservation plans, are likely to be broadly accepted. In addition, BMPs should be evaluated to ensure they complement each other at all scales (e.g., strategic, tactical and operational). It will be important to evaluate the efficacy of existing practices that remain part of caribou action plans, plus identifying new/innovative practices that replace older ones or are added as probably beneficial. Table 1 provides a summary of BMPs for the forest sector as summarized within Golder Associates (2007) and updated following the CBFA RWG conservation planning workshop. Note that this is only a summary of existing BMPs applied across caribou ranges but that RWGs need to also consider the following: What are the existing best management practices and what are they supposed to do for caribou (impact pathway, perceived effectiveness)? Consider how BMPs will vary across the landscape depending on the activities or objectives of an area. Identify new/innovative available BMPs (scoping of alternatives; e.g., given a current range state and zonation determination, more focus on reducing predation risk such as predator fencing or captive rearing (e.g., Antoniuk et al. 2012) may be considered in parallel with habitat BMPs). Clarify/identify key components of a BMP which impact effectiveness and which should be considered by RWGs during development of caribou action plans (e.g., consider scale; BMPs that address access management would provide greater value to caribou in the context of a landscape level/strategic access plan). BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ACTION PLANNING STEPS The following step-by-step guide can be considered by RWGs when applying BMPs within the context of conservation plans. STEP 1: ASSEMBLE LIST OF BMPS Use master list as a starting point Assemble regionally specific list from all sources (e.g., operating ground rules, certification criteria, and other sectors) Develop innovative additions STEP 2: SIGNATORIES APPLY MATRIX OF COST/EFFECTIVENESS Populate each Category from the list based on Expert review and signatory consensus BMPs of low value and low cost will require additional evaluation from a cost / benefit perspective. 44