James Schaefer Arctos Research 11 February 2005

Transcription

1 Review of: Alberta Woodland Caribou Recovery Team Alberta woodland caribou plan 2004/ /14. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. X. Edmonton. James Schaefer Arctos Research 11 February Does the plan aim for full recovery or just survival of the species? The vision espoused by the recovery team is to achieve, within 10 years, positive population trajectories for the majority of woodland caribou herds in Alberta (p.10). While avoiding the further loss of populations is an explicit objective, at the same time it is stated (footnote, p.12) that the recovery team will not impose infeasible efforts, at any cost, to preserve every herd. Given the poor prospects (small size and declining trajectories) of several herds (Table 2) and the economic realism of the plan (p.11), it appears that the recovery of some populations will not be achieved or attempted. Strictly speaking, therefore, the recovery goal could be met with just ten (of 18) herds showing positive population growth; eight herds could vanish under this successful scenario. 2. Is critical habitat identified in the recovery plan? Habitat is denoted (footnote, p.12) as landforms, vegetation types, and seral stages as well as... roads, geophysical exploration lines, and other human infrastructure known to affect caribou. Although hunters, predators and parasites are not explicitly included (but nevertheless are associated with these landscape changes), the definition appears to satisfy the notion of habitat as population limiting factors (Caughley & Gunn 1996). There is some ambiguity in the plan with respect to the geographic boundaries for recovery. Caribou range is defined as the area occupied by a herd (footnote, p.3), but the recovery team also considers that strategies exist to reoccupy vacant portions of ranges that still

2 contain resident caribou herds (footnote, p.10). In particular, we see in Figure 1 the boundaries of "caribou range" and each "area of caribou occurrence" in the province. Presumably, the joint sum of these includes all suitable "caribou habitat", but this is not stated. It is puzzling that these two delineations don't coincide. In some instances, there is more caribou "occurrence" than "range", but in other cases (i.e., Richardson herd), it is the converse. It is well known for the sedentary (forest-dwelling) ecotype that the greatest population dispersion occurs at calving and post-calving, when females 'space out' and occupy the entire population range. The limits of all calving activity (plus a buffer of several kilometers) would provide a reasonable first approximation of where current "critical habitat" is for these herds. 3. If critical habitat is not identified, does the plan articulate immediate, interim measures to identify and protect habitat to ensure survival of the species in the short term? The main features of proposed interim measures for critically endangered herds are: (1) a halt to further mineral and timber resource allocations in the habitat of herds threatened with immediate extirpation (2) control of predators or alternate prey, and (3) the elimination of hunting mortality. Indeed, because the prospects for several of these caribou populations are poor (Table 2), effective interim measures may be vital to their persistence. It is important to underline that the plan recommends implementation of a moratorium on further mineral and timber resource allocation (sales) in the habitat of herds threatened with immediate extirpation " (p.26). So, it would appear, the momentum of ongoing and planned industrial development would be maintained. In the recovery plan, therefore, we witness the merging of two kinds of delay: (1) a lag in our response to the decline of caribou ('sustained' development) and (2) the lag in the demise of caribou following habitat changes (the 'extinction debt'; Tilman et al. 1994). Together, they are likely to ensure the continuing decline (and perhaps demise) of several caribou herds in the province. Moreover, this moratorium on future industrial development is to be in effect only until a Sierra Club of Canada 2

3 range plan is completed, a maximum of one year (p.26), with no indication or commitment thereafter. Finally, the initiation of corrective actions are prescribed as a follow-up to habitat supply evaluation (p.13). What is not acknowledged in the document is that the reductions of predators or alternate prey represent the application of half-way technologies (Frazer 1992), in this case, the treatment of the symptoms of, rather than the cause of, caribou endangerment and demise anthropogenic landscape alterations. 4. Where critical habitat is not identified, but general habitat is, are activities that cause destruction/degradation of habitat clearly identified? The anthropogenic footprint is clearly the driver of caribou demise in the province (equation, p.20) and this is consistent with the literature (Schaefer 2003). However, the emphasis throughout is on habitat supply, which tends to skirt consideration of the agent causing the decline in supply. 5. Does the recovery plan address, with strategies to mitigate, the primary causes of species decline? Given that habitat alterations are the principal cause of decline, some of the recovery focus is on curbing the size, amount, tenure, and extent of individual industrial activities. It is recognized, however, that these guidelines have been enacted in place of broader scale, landscape management (p.21), which is the appropriate scale for caribou conservation. Other mitigation strategies aim at reducing predation (through reducing predator number and mobility) and overharvest (through consultation with First Nations, public education, and restriction of access). Vehicle collisions are also identified, but the document leaves it to range plans to recommend solutions. 6. Does the recovery plan address, with strategies to mitigate, other significant threats to the species? Sierra Club of Canada 3

4 It is noted in the document (p.7) that disturbances either natural (i.e., forest fires) or human (i.e., timber harvesting, oil and gas exploration and development, agricultural development, peat mining) may render otherwise suitable caribou habitat unsuitable. While it correctly noted that caribou may reoccupy burned forests after several decades (e.g., Schaefer & Pruitt 1991), the statement that habitat altered in these ways can potentially recover in time implies that this is also true of anthropogenic disturbances. Perhaps we simply have had not enough time to witness such reoccupation, but I am not aware of any successful reestablishment or reintroduction of caribou (except to islands) to areas disturbed by humans (see also Bergerud & Mercer 1989). Such landscape changes might be deemed permanent; there is no evidence to disprove this hypothesis. I found a rather optimistic tone to the document, especially under Recovery Potential and Rationale (p.8). Perhaps this optimism is justified and beneficial, but the lack of documented cases of caribou reoccupation in the industrial forest (see above) and the widespread population declines in the province (Table 2) seem to suggest otherwise. Indeed, a recent analysis (Weclaw & Hudson 2004) projected the extirpation of woodland caribou from Alberta in 37 years. 7. Are socio-economic concerns barriers to the implementation of key strategies for recovery? The recovery team is acutely aware, it seems, of the economic reality of caribou recovery in Alberta. The commercial and non-commerial users of forest resources are forewarned (p.10) that access limitations or more expensive industrial technologies may be needed to support caribou conservation. This is not surprising, given the species requirement for vast, contiguous tracts of mature forest a vanishing landscape type in the province. Economic realism (p.11), therefore, permeates much of the document. It is explicitly acknowledged that recovery actions are to be considered both for their effectiveness and their feasibility (p.11); infeasible options, at any cost are discounted. Where historical caribou range has been significantly altered, recovery is not afforded any further consideration (p.10). Perhaps this was driven by socio-economic pressures, but Sierra Club of Canada 4

5 here the record of caribou recovery is in agreement. There are no cases of successful reintroduction of caribou, with the exception of islands (Bergerud & Mercer 1989), into areas where they have been extirpated. 8. Does the recovery plan include indicators for monitoring the long-term viability of the species recovery? Population rate-of-growth is appropriately cited as the indicator of caribou recovery as long as it is used within an ecosystem management framework. What is not clear, however, is over what time frame population stability or growth needs to be achieved, within the 10- year horizon of the recovery vision. Year-to-year variation in the finite-rate-of-increase can be considerable (Appendix 1), implying that several years or decades of monitoring might be needed. 9. Would the recovery strategy, if implemented, negatively impact other species? Control of predators (and other ungulate species) is listed as an option, particularly for declining and critically endangered herds. Indeed, I would anticipate given the status of some herds and the degree of industrial development on some ranges that reductions of wolves (and perhaps black bears) is a strong likelihood. While control of predators is deemed an interim measure, periodic intervention is not discounted (p.23). 10. What are the main strengths and weaknesses of the plan? Its strengths are: A commitment to gather sufficient demographic information (annually, in the case of herds facing imminent demise), in particular, adult survival and recruitment, the most precise indicators of population trends. There is also a commitment to revise recovery actions and plans in an adaptive management context. The mathematical model linking population rate-of-increase to landscape metrics (p.20) is a good start to the practical Sierra Club of Canada 5

6 application of biological knowledge (although it neglects the serious possibility of the extinction debt ; footnote p.20). A realistic and practical timetable for range planning, on a herd-by-herd basis, in addition to other activities. An invitation for a broader, multi-stakeholder approach to recovery, including First Nations and industry. Curiously, while public consensus is clearly essential to the implementation of recovery actions, this recommendation (p.15) may also represent a serious weakness of the plan, particularly if socioeconomic interests from government and industry are permitted to trump biological considerations. In my view, there needs to be clear flow of information and recommendations from biologists, firmly ensconced in science, which can then be considered and debated in their broader social context not the converse. (Compare Figures 3 and 4 with respect to the relationship between Range Team and Multi-Stakeholder Caribou Committee.) Its weaknesses are: A rather restricted vision for caribou recovery (see #1 above), seemingly restrained from the outset by economic realism. While industry participation, for example, is beneficial as part of a broader debate about the value of woodland caribou to Albertans and the practical implementation of recovery actions, the fundamental premise in the document (Section 7.4) is that we need to develop means to manage caribou in the industrial forest, rather than manage (or eliminate) industrial activities on caribou range. (My next two points, below, underscore this weakness.) Bluntly stated, best practices (p.20) may not be good enough. The view that multi-stakeholder committees should represent... the primary vehicle for generation of financial and other resources to support caribou research... and other essential activities (p.12). While industry should be commended for its support of caribou research in Alberta, it is the general public that benefits most from caribou conservation. Sierra Club of Canada 6

7 Essential activities strongly implies that support of conservation studies and recovery efforts should not be left to the generosity of corporations, however well-intentioned. That range plans will be implemented using existing... company planning and approval systems (p.16). This is a rather nebulous statement, but it carries the insidious suggestion that caribou recovery plans will be implemented only once industrial approval is granted. While adaptive management is espoused, emphasis on improving practices that support caribou recovery does not occur until This is not consistent with the principle of adaptive management, where industrial activities and developments are to be treated as an experiment. Indeed, with the widespread decline of caribou in Alberta (as well as much data collection on that species), there seems to be ample opportunity for critical, retrospective tests of caribou management guidelines in the province. A more minor point: Although the current caribou distribution is depicted (Figure 1), there is no map of the historical distribution in the plan. Without this (or reference to another authority), readers cannot assess the degree of caribou range retraction, which is appreciable in Alberta. Literature Cited (in addition to citations in the Recovery Plan) Bergerud, A. T., and W. E. Mercer Caribou introductions in eastern North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17: Caughley, G. and A. Gunn Conservation Biology in Theory and Practice. Blackwell Science, Cambridge, MA. Frazer, N. B Sea turtle conservation and halfway technology. Conservation Biology 6: Schaefer, J. A., and W. O. Pruitt, Jr Fire and woodland caribou in southeastern Manitoba. Wildlife Monographs 116:1-39. Sierra Club of Canada 7

8 Tilman, D., R. M. May, C. L. Lehman, and M. A. Nowak Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature 371: Weclaw, P., and R. J. Hudson Simulation of conservation and management of woodland caribou. Ecological Modelling 177: Sierra Club of Canada 8