VISIT US ON

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

Iteration 1

Prepared for:The Science Committee and the National Working Group on Goals 2 and 3 of the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement

Prepared by:Terry Antoniuk, Salmo Consulting Inc.Elston Dzus, Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc.John Nishi, EcoBorealis Consulting Inc.

September 2012

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM

410-99 Bank Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6B9

Tel: 613.212.5196 | info@borealagreement.ca

ENTENTE SUR LA FORET BOREALE CANADIENNE. COM

410-99, rue Bank, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6B9

Tél. : 613.212.5196 | info@borealagreement.ca

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT.COM

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM i

A Methodological Framework for Caribou Action Planning In Support of the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement

Antoniuk, T., E. Dzus, and J. Nishi

Copyright © 2012, the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement

About the CBFAOn May 18, 2010, 21 member companies of the Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC), and nine leading environmental organizations unveiled an unprecedented agreement that applies to 72 million hectares of public forests licensed to FPAC members. The Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement (CBFA), when fully implemented, will conserve significant areas of the vast boreal forest in Canada and protect threat-ened woodland caribou. It will also apply the highest environmental standards to forest management and provide a competitive market edge for participating companies.

Forestry companies currently participating in the Agreement: Alberta Pacific Forest Industries Inc., AV Group, Canfor Pulp Limited Partnership, Canfor Corporation, Cariboo Pulp & Paper Company, Conifex, DMI, Fortress Paper Ltd. Howe Sound Pulp and Paper Corporation, Kruger Inc., LP Canada, Mercer International, Mill & Timber Products Ltd, Miller Western Forest Products Ltd., Resolute Forest Products, Tembec Inc., Tolko Industries, West Fraser Timber Co. Ltd, Weyerhaeuser Company Limited.

Environmental organizations participating in the Agreement:Canadian Boreal Initiative, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Canopy, the David Suzuki Foundation, ForestEthics, Greenpeace, Ivey Foundation, the Nature Conservancy, and the Pew Environment Group’s International Boreal Conservation Campaign.

The financial support of the Ivey, Pew and Hewlett Foundations, the Nature Conservancy, and FPAC were es-sential to the negotiation and implementation of the agreement.

For further information on the CBFA, visit www.canadianborealforestagreement.com

Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement Secretariat410-99 Bank Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6B9Tel: (613) 212-5196info@borealagreement.ca

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM ii

CONTENTS

GUIDANCE NOTE ON REVIEW OF THIS ITERATION IV

PREAMBLE V

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS VIII

1. BACKGROUND 1

2. STRUCTURE 2

2.1 Goal of Caribou Action Planning 22.2 Principles for Action Planning 22.3 Definition of the Planning Area 32.4 Existing Management Policies, Strategies, and Plans 4

3. METHODOLOGY 4

3.1 Characterizing Range Condition (Current and Future) 43.1.1 RangeDelineation 6

3.1.1.1 Large Continuous Range 63.1.1.2 Small Discrete Range 6

3.1.2 HabitatSuitabilityandMortalityRiskInputs 73.1.2.1 Current Range Condition 83.1.2.2 Future Range Condition 93.1.2.3 Delineating Best Available Habitat 11

3.1.3 OtherRiskFactors 113.2 Defining Management Measures 123.2.1 ApplyingDisturbanceThresholds 123.2.2 BestManagementPractices 163.2.3 AdaptiveManagementMeasures 16

4. SUMMARY 17

5. REFERENCES 18

APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY 23

APPENDIX B. DATA SOURCES FOR CURRENT RANGE CONDITION ANALYSES 26

APPENDIX C. DATA SOURCES FOR FUTURE RANGE CONDITION ANALYSES 30

APPENDIX D. TEMPLATE FOR ASSESSING CARIBOU ACTION PLANS 32

APPENDIX E. DISTURBANCE THRESHOLD EXAMPLES 36

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM iii

FIGURE 1. CBFA CARIBOU REGIONAL ACTION PLANNING FLOW CHART 5

FIGURE 2. PLANNING AREA INCORPORATING DESIGNATED RANGE PLUS BUFFER TO REFLECT PREDATION RISK 7

FIGURE 3. CONCEPTUAL SCHEMATIC OF ONE-ZONE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 15

FIGURE 4. CONCEPTUAL SCHEMATICS OF TWO-ZONE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 15

FIGURE 5. CONCEPTUAL SCHEMATIC OF THREE-ZONE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 15

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM iv

GUIDANCE NOTE

The CBFA is sharing the Methodological Framework for Caribou Action Planning in the interest of fostering better alignment between its own planning efforts and those of its partners in the recovery of boreal woodland caribou. In reviewing this framework, please keep in mind the following:

• It will be revised by the CBFA Science Committee and National Working Group on Goals 2 and 3 (NWG 2/3) in the Fall of 2012 to:

◦ combine it with a protected areas methodological framework and a socio-economic assessment framework to form an integrated product tentatively entitled the “Integrated Guide to CBFA Planning”;

◦ address the findings and conclusions of Environment Canada’s “Phase II” science and other forthcoming products being developed by Environment Canada for the anticipated National Recovery Strategy for Boreal Woodland Caribou; and

◦ address the “lessons learned” from CBFA Phase 1 planning that have emerged to Sept 15, 2012. • As per above, this framework is the first iteration.

• Please also note that in implementing the framework, CBFA regional working groups (RWGs) are directed to pay close attention to the local policy framework in which planning is being undertaken.

Additionally, the CBFA will be developing further guidance on a number of matters addressed by this framework over the coming months. These include but are not limited to:

1. a refinement to the definition of “functional habitat”; more guidance on the issue of disturbance configuration; and elaboration on re-occupancy of disturbed habitat;

2. workshop(s) on the application of the disturbance threshold and zonation approach at the range-level; and

3. a framework for nationally coordinated active adaptive management of caribou action planning.

Important information on the overall planning context in which this framework is intended to be applied is given in the Preamble to this document.

Finally, please direct all questions and clarifications regarding this document to the CBFA Science Committee and National Working Group for Goals 2 and 3 through coordinator Aran O’Carroll (aocarroll@borealagreement.ca).

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM v

PREAMBLE This preamble to the Methodological Framework for Caribou Action Planning sheds light on how methodological frameworks developed by the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement (CBFA) will be integrated in the future, and how CBFA partners will move forward with planning in the interim.

1. CBFA PLANNING FRAMEWORK

The Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement Secretariat is producing three key components of a conservation planning framework to support two of its primary goals:

• Goal 2: The completion of a network of protected areas that, taken as a whole, represents the diversity of ecosystems within the boreal region and serves to provide ecological benchmarks

• Goal 3: The recovery of species at risk within the boreal forest, including species such as Woodland Caribou

The CBFA planning framework is to be based on the best available knowledge and will provide a consistent approach to planning while allowing for flexibility within individual regions. The CBFA National Working Group on Goals 2 and 3 has now commissioned three guidance documents that are component methodological frameworks for:

1. Caribou Action Planning

2. Protected Areas Planning

3. Socio-economic Assessment

While each component framework on its own will provide valuable insights and context for CBFA working groups, all three will be integrated into one CBFA planning framework for guidance and direction.

Proposed Timelines: Each component framework will be developed in two sequential steps. A first internal iteration will be complete in the fall of 2012 and a final public iteration will be prepared for the spring of 2013. In the interim, these products will be revised based upon the experience of our Phase 1 planning and other developments in best available information, including anticipated products from Environment Canada’s efforts to develop a National Recovery Strategy for Boreal Woodland Caribou. We are recommending a workshop be held in the near future to support the integration process and to inform the finalization and publication of this CBFA planning framework.

Other CBFA Goals: There is a recognized need to develop the CBFA planning framework so that it is integrated with the other goals of the CBFA, in particular Goal 1, “Forest Practices”, and Goal 4, “Climate Friendly Practices.” The timeline for this integration step is still to be determined.

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM vi

2. REGIONAL PLANNING PHASES

Phase 1 priority-planning exercises are proceeding in the absence of the component frameworks and the CBFA planning framework. In fact, the frameworks will be revised based on the lessons learned from “piloting” the CBFA in Phase 1. Phase 1 products will be less refined than products expected from Phase 2 and 3 because:

i. many Phase 1 planning exercises have very tight timelines associated with the pressing political or policy contexts;

ii. there is a CBFA objective to achieve “early wins” with the Phase 1 exercises; and

iii. many Phase 1 planning exercises will not have had the benefit of guidance from the Independent Science Advisory Team (ISAT), the national working groups on Goal 1, Goals 2 and 3, and Goal 4, and particularly the methodological frameworks.

It is notintended that products (e.g. caribou action plans) from Phase 1 exercises will be revisited or revised in the short-term, except as may be provided for under the CBFA. It is expected that these plans would have priority when it comes to the annual review of CBFA products provided for under the Agreement.

Sequencing of Goal 2 and Goal 3 planning: The CBFA Steering Committee has encouraged the parties to concurrently address Goals 2 and 3 in an integrated manner during implementation, including during the Phase 1 planning exercises. Nonetheless, there may be strategic reasons to treat these matters separately or in sequence. For instance, it may be wise to choose a narrower scope initially, recognizing:

• genuine capacity, time, and information constraints;

• political/policy and other circumstances (e.g. a need for early wins) whereby taking an integrated approach in the short-term would undermine long-term success.

However, irrespective of the current policy context and other considerations, all parties have committed to eventually implementing all aspects of the Agreement.

Should the parties choose to take a sequential approach to developing and/or implementing Goals 2 and 3, RWGs are encouraged to discuss how the lack of short-term integration will impact their planning process. For example, a step-wise approach may create uncertainties about the consequences (benefits and costs) of early decisions, given that the consequences of the full suite of recommended measures for both goals will be unknown. This may reduce flexibility and creativity around the planning table. These are other important considerations for RWGs to weigh:

• At each sequential step, the assumption is that there will be a re-evaluation of the cumulative ecological and socio-economic impact of recommended changes. In other words, the benefits and costs of strategies for each iterative planning step are cumulative and should not be measured in isolation from one another.

• Circumstances may arise that necessitate a review of prior decisions.

• There is a need to be explicit about what is being aimed for at each stage. For example, will the caribou action plan be designed as a stand-alone product, sufficient to meet the needs of caribou in the absence of any action on Goal 2? Or, will the caribou action plan assume that caribou needs will only be met once Goal 2 is planned for, and protected areas are added to a suite of caribou management actions?

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM vii

3. DECISION-MAKING IN SUPPORT OF THE TWIN PILLARS

The CBFA planning framework will help establish a scientific foundation for decision-making throughout the CBFA process. However, the framework, in and of itself, is not a guide to making social choices. Further guidance is needed on how information developed in applying the framework can best be used by decision-makers to achieve the goals and objectives of the CBFA. The planning framework should address this issue by recommending a fully integrated planning process, from development of analysis and information at a technical level, through to the exercise of social choice.

As an overarching principle, the CBFA aims to concurrently achieve high degrees of ecological integrity and socio-economic prosperity – the “twin pillars” - guided by the best available information and by its other principles (CBFA, Section 10).

The Agreement recognizes that it may not always be possible to achieve these objectives concurrently in the short- to mid-term. There are circumstances where achieving high degrees of ecological integrity in the short- to mid-term may have too much of a socio-economic impact, or viceversa.

If it is not possible to concurrently achieve these objectives in the short- to mid-term, a “social choice” can be made to depart from the overarching objective of simultaneously achieving both pillars. The choice should be:

• made within the context of the CBFA to ensure the objectives are achieved as quickly as possible;

• informed by the best available information on short- to mid-term ecological and socio-economic impacts;

• made by the signatories to the CBFA, not by the ISAT, in the context of developing CBFA products, and by governments in the context of implementing final decisions;

• made in a transparent manner; and

• accompanied by a plan showing how to concurrently achieve low ecological risk and high degrees of socio-economic prosperity over the long term.

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSOver the course of its development, the Methodological Framework for Caribou Action Planning has been subject to an extensive internal and external review process. (See the diagram on page ix for an overview of the process.) We would like to first and foremost thank the Independent Science Advisory Team (ISAT) authors who actively prepared and presented these materials to reviewers as they were in development, and subsequently revised and adjusted the product:

• Terry Antoniuk P.Bio., R.P.Bio., Salmo Consulting Inc.• Elston Dzus, PhD, Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc.• John Nishi, MSc, EcoBorealis Consulting Inc.

The CBFA similarly thanks the external expert reviewers who committed their time to a critical review of the document and prepared extensive comments to guide the revision process:

• Martin-Hugues St-Laurent, PhD, Université du Québec à Rimouski• Justina C. Ray, PhD, Wildlife Conservation Society Canada

Through the National Working Group for Goals 2 and 3, the CBFA partners themselves also made a significant contribution to review of the product. The group’s members include some of Canada’s most experienced and knowledgeable experts on Caribou conservation, including:

• Allan Bell, Tolko • Rick Bonar, West Fraser Timber Co Ltd.• Amanda Carr, Canopy • Wendy Crosina, Weyerhaeuser • Elston Dzus, Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc. • Rick Groves, Resolute Forest Products • Pierre Iachetti, ForestEthics• Chris Miller, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) • Rachel Plotkin, David Suzuki Foundation • Jim Stephenson, Canfor • Meredith Trainor, International Boreal Conservation Campaign • Alan Thorne, Tembec • Jim Witiw, Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd. • Aran O’Carroll, CBFA National Planning Coordinator

Finally, the CBFA Science Committee played a central role in guiding the development and review of this framework. Its members include:

• Fiona Schmiegelow, CBFA Senior Science Advisor and Independent Chair of the Science Committee• Charles Drever, The Nature Conservancy • Daren Sleep, National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) • Shawn Wasel, Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc.• Jeff Wells, Boreal Songbird Initiative• Chuck Rumsey, CBFA National Science Coordinator

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM ix

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 1

1. BACKGROUND1

The Methodological Framework for Caribou Action Planning provides a structure for: (a) collating our current understanding of the known or likely causes of decline in woodland caribou (Rangifertaranduscaribou) boreal populations (hereafter boreal caribou); and (b) recommending suites of current and emerging management tools to achieve caribou conservation in a given region. The framework is a guiding document for Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement (CBFA) regional working group members and planning practitioners. It is intended to help jointly-produced CBFA caribou action plans meet a consistent and high standard of quality and completeness; it is not intended to be a comprehensive review of the scientific literature on caribou ecology or recovery planning. By incorporating principles, criteria, and critical analyses that address both causes of declines and scientific uncertainty, CBFA caribou action plans will address current conservation challenges and opportunities for Canada’s boreal forests. This will improve their linkage to relevant government management and recovery processes (hereafter government caribou action plans or GCAPs).

Provincial and territorial governments are the primary authority for caribou management and monitoring in Canada. Federal government involvement reflects the legal designation of boreal caribou as threatened under the Species at Risk Act (SARA). As outlined in the CBFA Goal 3 decision note (May 14, 2010), regional working groups are to first evaluate finalized or in-progress GCAPs relative to this CBFA methodological framework. Figure 1 illustrates the steps outlined in this paragraph. If the GCAP is consistent with this framework, then little or no additional work is required. Efforts can then focus on jointly advocating for implementation of the GCAP. If there are gaps or inconsistencies between the GCAP and

the CBFA methodological framework, RWGs will want to address them. In the absence of a GCAP for any given region, the RWG will need to develop its own CBFA caribou action plan(s). The methodological framework and its associated evaluation tool are intended to help regional working groups gain broad-based support for implementing caribou conservation measures. Regional working groups will need to adapt guidance from the framework to accommodate regional variations in ecological factors, land use activities, and socio-economic situations. Advice provided through the CBFA caribou action plans is intended to accelerate development and implementation of GCAPs.

The preamble to Schedule A of the CBFA notes that appropriate conservation actions for caribou action planning include measures for both protection and management. The protection measures outlined therein relate primarily to habitat conservation (e.g., through long-term deferrals and creation of new protected areas), while management measures can include a suite of habitat- or population-based activities at the tenure and/or range level. Population management measures are the direct mandate of provincial/territorial governments (possibly in collaboration with Aboriginal governments). In contrast, the mandate for habitat management measures is shared by forestry companies, other tenure holders (e.g., in the oil and gas sector), governments, and other land users (such as recreational users). CBFA caribou action plans should identify a comprehensive suite of conservation measures, addressing both population and habitat, and identify the parties responsible for implementing them. For example, CBFA signatories (2010) may be able to recommend habitat-based conservation actions (e.g., identify potential protected areas), even though implementation of such a measure is government-mandated.

1.

A glossary of terms used in the framework is provided in Appendix 1.

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 2

The Methodological Framework for Caribou Action Planning is intended to be a technical guidance document with a foundation in science and other local knowledge bases. The CBFA asserts that regional working groups start with the science (i.e., what measures would be taken if acting solely on the basis of best available science) and then overlay this with a consideration of agreed upon social and economic criteria. Further guidance to CBFA working groups on integrating ecologically-based science and socio-economic evaluations is provided in the attached preamble, other CBFA documentation and in non-CBFA literature (e.g., Environment Canada 2008, Dzus et al. 2010). A revision of this methodological framework is planned for Year 2 of the CBFA following: completion of methodological frameworks for conservation planning and socio-economic assessments; the collective learning from Phase 1 pilots; and release of the Environment Canada national recovery strategy and its associated science documentation.

2. STRUCTURE For consistency, the following structure will serve as guidance to regional working groups in drafting their CBFA caribou action plans. The following headings are recommended. (Additional detail and a few specific examples are provided in sections that follow.)

- Goal of Caribou Action Planning - Principles for Action Planning - Planning Area

◦ Include identification of caribou range and forest management unit boundaries. (Differences are outlined below in Sections 2.3 and 3.1.1)

- Current State of Knowledge of Range (Habitat and Population2)

◦ Include identification of ‘best available habitat’. - Identify the principal land use occupants3 in the range

besides CBFA signatories. ◦ Describe monitoring practices in the range.

- Future Condition of Range (Habitat and Population)

- Nature of Provincial Government Caribou Conservation Actions in the Range

- Recommended Management Measures (Habitat and Population) ◦ Include a suggested disturbance thresholds approach.

◦ Include recommendations for best management practices.

◦ Include a suggested adaptive management approach.

2.1 GOAL OF CARIBOU ACTION PLANNING - Caribou action plan goals should be directly linked

to factors that are affecting the species’ ‘at-risk’ designation. The goal of caribou action planning should be to maintain or enhance self-sustaining4 boreal caribou populations within the plan area. Some provincial recovery plans also include goals relating to habitat. CBFA regional working groups are likewise encouraged to consider including a goal related to habitat, as aspects of habitat conservation are within the management purview of forestry companies, and functional habitat is a prerequisite for self-sustaining populations. Consistency with provincial and federal species at risk legislation should be observed.

2.2 PRINCIPLES FOR ACTION PLANNINGUncertainty, the precautionary principle, and adaptive management need to be addressed by action planning for species at risk across Canada. Our collective understanding of caribou ecology and factors influencing caribou population dynamics has increased substantially in recent decades. However, key uncertainties still exist in our knowledge base and in management strategies for promoting recovery of species at risk.

Regional working groups must carefully assess the state of knowledge relative to ecological and land use parameters in their region. Action plans should build upon the strengths of local knowledge and incorporate an adaptive management approach to addressing key uncertainties. On the note of ‘uncertainty’, RWGs should not let uncertainty delay action and a precautionary approach should guide decisions when considering options.

The following foundational principles provide the basis for caribou action planning:

Commitment to caribou action planning: All land users on caribou range, including all affected branches of government, share responsibility for and are committed to the goal of caribou action planning. Commitment and action by all of these parties are critical to achieving the goals of caribou action planning.

2 Reference to “population” in several sections below should include caribou, relevant predators, and other prey identified by the working group as being important in their regional predator-prey system.3 Regional variation will exist in how this is represented, but should include representation of industrial land users and identification of overlap with the traditional territories of local Aboriginal people.4 See glossary for definition of self-sustaining populations.

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 3

Cumulative effects management: Maintaining the structure and function of the boreal forest system is essential for the long-term sustainability of boreal caribou and other dependent species. The cumulative effect of all factors impacting boreal caribou, their use of habitats, and their survival must be addressed in action plans.

Adaptive management: In the context of uncertainty associated with planning for and implementing caribou conservation actions, adaptive management practices can facilitate learning from the outcomes of previously employed policies and practices. This supports continuous improvement of management policies and practices.

The following guiding principles defined by the CBFA are also relevant for regional caribou action planning:

1. Best Available Science: We will base our proposed strategies and outcomes on the best available science and information.

2. Ecologically Effective: In choosing among actions that have equivalent social and economic outcomes, we will select those that are most ecologically effective.

3. Minimize Social and Economic Impacts: In choosing among actions that have equivalent ecological outcomes, we will select those that minimize social and economic impacts first, followed by any disproportionate timber supply effects.

4. Precautionary Approach: We will adopt a precautionary approach, while maintaining a process of active adaptive management.

5. Address Impacts on Wood Supply and Costs: We will minimize, mitigate, or otherwise address the impact of new actions on wood supply and costs.

6. Recognize Changing Forest Health and Protection Circumstances: We will recognize that potential changes in circumstances (due to fire, insect infestation, or disease, for example) may take precedence over our planned actions.

2.3 DEFINITION OF THE PLANNING AREA Environment Canada (2008) defines critical habitat as “the resources and environmental conditions required for persistence of local populations of boreal caribou throughout their current distribution in Canada.” They further identify the local population range as “the relevant spatial scale for the identification of critical habitat that includes the habitat conditions (quantity, quality, and spatial configuration) required by caribou.” Given that the CBFA is to be consistent with Environment Canada’s draft recovery strategy, the critical habitat science review, and forthcoming products, we recommend using the local population range as the foundation for defining a planning area. Regional variation in caribou ecology as well as socio-political considerations will also need to be factored in when identifying the planning area boundary.

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 (FMUs5) overlap with said caribou ranges. In some areas of Canada, forest management units are large enough, and caribou ranges are defined in such a way that an FMU may encompass one or more entire caribou range. In other areas, there may be one or more FMUs that overlap parts of a given caribou range. Caribou ranges may overlap provincial or territorial boundaries, thus further complicating planning area definitions. Regional working groups will need to define the planning area for their CBFA caribou action plans with due consideration of how ‘range’ is defined locally and how the range(s) may intersect forest management units. Further guidance on planning area definition is provided in section 3.1 below.

2.4 EXISTING MANAGEMENT POLICIES, STRATEGIES, AND PLANSPolicies6 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.

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 4

The key challenges to caribou conservation in most parts of Canada arise from the cumulative effects of multiple land uses and, as such, will require policy frameworks that explicitly manage combined causes emanating from multiple actors. Decision-making with a sector- or issue-specific “silo mentality” has been the norm in most jurisdictions where each department is responsible only for actions within their narrow mandate. Actions directed by policies in one department often contradict the mandate of other departments. Therefore, regional working groups should conduct a policy review to confirm compatibility of management measures recommended in CBFA caribou action plans. Recommended policy changes can then be included in the plans and submitted as advice to the applicable government or corporate body responsible for caribou conservation. The realm of the possible should not be bound by present realities.

Regarding forest tenures specifically, RWGs will have to examine overlap of forest management units relative to caribou ranges and prepare management options accordingly. In areas where several forestry companies operate within one caribou range, CBFA regional working groups should consider solutions within and beyond current tenure arrangements.

3. METHODOLOGYCaribou action plans must consider:

• the habitat that caribou require for all stages of their life history;

• natural factors that affect caribou reproduction and survival;

• the influence of anthropogenic land use on caribou habitat suitability, reproduction, and survival; and

• policies and decision-making processes that affect land use practices and population dynamics.

Wherever possible, CBFA caribou action plans should incorporate the data sources and analyses discussed throughout section 3 of this framework to consistently evaluate current and future range condition and limiting factors.

The flow chart in Figure 1 depicts the key steps in preparing a caribou action plan.

3.1 CHARACTERIZING RANGE CONDITION (CURRENT AND FUTURE)Range condition analyses represent the first step in the action planning process. They are intended to characterize the current and future mortality risk and habitat suitability (i.e., its quantity, quality, and spatial configuration) of each designated woodland caribou range. Analyses should also identify areas of ‘best available habitat’ as priorities for conservation, restoration, and management.

Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping and analytical tools (such as ArcGIS or ArcInfo) will be needed to collate data into a common file for analysis.

5 Forest management unit (FMU) is used generically in this document to refer to the area of land under tenure to a company in a contiguous geographic area. It is recognized that in some jurisdictions (e.g., Alberta) a FMU is more geographically limited and that several “FMUs” constitute a single tenure.6 The term policy is used here generically and relates to treaties, laws, acts, policies, regulations, etc.

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 5

Figure 1. CBFA caribou regional action planning flow chart

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 6

3.1.1 Range Delineation

To properly describe current habitat condition, CBFA caribou action plans should begin with government-designated ranges. Designated ranges include a spectrum from large, continuous areas with variable or undocumented caribou use (as in northern Ontario), to discrete polygons delineated by suitable habitat and documented use (e.g., Alberta ranges of less than 3,000 km2). Guidance for these two types of herd is provided below, but in all cases, the planning area should be large enough to incorporate:

• a sustainable caribou population. Environment Canada (2008) defines a minimum viable population as greater than 300 animals. Setting a different minimum population target may result in a lower or higher risk of persistence.

• both direct and indirect predation risk. The inclusion of indirect risk emphasizes that landscape conditions in habitat not used by caribou (including buffer areas described in small discrete ranges below) may affect predator abundance, and that these predators can move into caribou range or calving areas, thereby increasing predation risk (James et al. 2004; Culling et al. 2006; Latham 2009).

3.1.1.1 Large Continuous Range

In the case of a large, continuous range, each planning area should minimally include the habitat necessary for a self-sustaining caribou population and include all existing range when planning areas are combined. Local caribou populations within continuous habitat can be delineated using movement or survey data where these exist (Schaefer et al. 2001; Courtois et al. 2007; Environment Canada 2008). In the absence of these data, a conservative regional caribou density estimate can be applied to define planning area size. (For example, a density of 1-3 individuals per 100 km2 gives a planning area of 10,000 to 30,000 km2.) Planning area boundaries can then be chosen to reflect physical features that deter movement (such as rivers, or large patches of unsuitable habitat); indirect predation risk; habitat similarity, critical or unique features; local and traditional knowledge; natural disturbance regimes; and ecological and administrative boundaries. Regional working groups should also reference critical habitat guidance being developed by Environment Canada when it becomes available.

3.1.1.2 Small Discrete Range

The planning area for small, discrete ranges will frequently need to be expanded to accommodate a sustainable caribou population, factoring in indirect predation risk. This may include several small ranges plus the intervening matrix, or an adjacent buffer area intended to reflect indirect predation risk (Figure 2). Buffer widths of 20-30 km have been used in previous analyses (Antoniuk et al. 2007; ALT 2009); however because of variability in life history characteristics of wolves and bears across the boreal range, it is more appropriate to define buffer widths based on telemetry data from predators within or closest to the planning area (e.g., Culling et al. 2006; Brodeur et al. 2008, Courbin et al. 2009; Bastille-Rousseau et al. 2010). Where predator telemetry data are not available and designated caribou range boundaries have been defined only by suitable habitat or documented use, a conservative buffer width of 100 km is suggested. This will bring in appropriate consideration of predation risk based on wolves and bears with large home ranges, which is consistent with a precautionary approach.

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 7

Figure 2. Caribou action planning area incorporating designated range plus buffer to reflect predation risk

Although the planning area boundaries of CBFA caribou action plans should relate as much as possible to ecological boundaries within the region or planning area, there may be occasion to adjust these to administrative boundaries when they affect both the assessment of range condition and implementation of management actions. As an example, a recent caribou conservation planning effort in Alberta stopped at the Alberta-Saskatchewan border even though some caribou populations are shared with Saskatchewan (ALT 2009).

3.1.2 Habitat Suitability and Mortality Risk Inputs

Comprehensive, up-to-date data sets will not be available for some parts of the boreal forest, so best available information should be obtained and collated to define current and future mortality risk and habitat suitability. Recommended data sources are summarized in Appendices 2 and 3.

Primary sources of data will include forest tenure holders, government wildlife and land managers, government and private geomatics groups, traditional ecological knowledge holders, and caribou researchers. Key parameters to consider include: the land cover classification scheme, accuracy and coverage; attributes assigned to land use and landscape features; and consistency of coverage across the planning area. Data on land use feature width or area are not always available; where this is the case, average size estimates will need to be applied in the GIS.

Caribou action plans should reflect the state of knowledge where they are being prepared. As there is considerable variation across regions, working groups will need to consider the guidance and criteria discussed below (e.g., age or forest seral stage cut-offs), and adopt or modify them as appropriate to best reflect their planning area and available data. Management recommendations should be more precautionary where there is more uncertainty, and in these instances, the use of an adaptive management framework should be emphasized (see section 3.2.3).

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 8

3.1.2.1 Current Range Condition

The current range condition evaluation should summarize information in graphic and written form to provide an assessment of current caribou populations, habitat suitability, mortality risk, and other factors that may affect caribou in the planning area.

Current range condition assessments should include:

1. Estimates of either boreal caribou population size and/or population trend (e.g., lambda over at least 3 years), distribution and any areas/features that are disproportionately important for caribou (e.g., discrete calving areas, refuge habitat7, other concentration areas, movement corridors, and elevated road kill areas).

2. A spectrum of caribou habitat suitability as defined by local habitat use relationships. If such studies are not available, groups can use the following as guidance: suitable habitat includes lichen biomass that is within the natural variability of a mature conifer stand8 (e.g., >40-50 year old forested peatlands (closed and open black spruce) (Dunford et al. 2006); > 80 year old upland pine forest (Coxson and Marsh 2001); and >125 year old spruce forest (Morneau and Payette 1989; Lesmerises et al. 2011)); unsuitable includes existing burnt/disturbed areas (e.g., <40-125 years to reflect regional variation noted above, displayed by age class).

3. Predator distribution and density, where available.

4. Other prey (e.g., moose, white-tailed deer, beaver, etc.) distribution and density, where available.

5. Critical habitat defined in accordance with federal, provincial, and territorial species at risk legislation.

6. Land use intensity, including: forest harvest blocks (e.g., those <50 years old9); facilities; mines; communities, residences, and cabins; linear corridors, in block roads and trails; reservoirs; other clearings; and industrial and recreational features.

7. Existing tenures and administrative/planning units that affect land use patterns and management actions.

Regional working groups will need to rely on readily available data and local and traditional knowledge for much of this information (e.g., government and research biologists, forest operators, Aboriginal groups). Suggested data sources for assessing current range condition are summarized in Appendix 2.

Where caribou monitoring data do not exist, current population trends can be inferred from empirically-based disturbance-population relationships. These relationships provide information on general trends (decline vs. growth) rather than actual demography (Sleep and Loehle 2010), but they provide another line of evidence to describe current range condition. A detailed comparison of disturbance-population relationships is beyond the scope of this framework, but the following general guidance is provided.

7 Refuge habitat includes large lakes with islands or uplands surrounded by lakes and bogs that give caribou a competitive advantage over wolves and other predators.8 This is mainly pine forest in western boreal regions, but includes pine, spruce and fir forest in eastern boreal regions.9 Relatively recent timber harvest areas and burns (young forest) contribute to indirect mortality risk because they provide suitable habitat for moose, deer, and other prey. Young forest has been defined as <30 years old (ALT 2009; Schneider et al. 2010) to <50 years old (Environment Canada 2009; Sorensen et al. 2008). Regional working groups should select an age most appropriate to their study area.

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 9

The spatially explicit Environment Canada (2008) relationship incorporating fire and buffered anthropogenic disturbance was developed with data from across Canada and is generally applicable to ranges in the boreal forest10. The Sorensen et al. (2008) equation and a recent update by Schneider et al. (2010) were developed with data from a relatively small number of moderate to very highly disturbed ranges in Alberta. The Alberta range-scale relationships also incorporate fire and anthropogenic disturbance but used different methodologies and do not account for any overlap between the two forms of disturbance; they are most relevant to developed multi-use areas in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (in northern Alberta and British Columbia). Environment Canada is also conducting supplementary national analyses that should be released in 2011, so regional working groups should consider all options and select the most appropriate relationship for their planning area or compare trends derived from each relationship.

The discussion of current range condition should identify key relationships, important areas, and any factors known or suspected to increase risk to boreal caribou population sustainability. This should include factors related to: low population size (e.g., relative to the minimum viable population of 300 identified by Environment Canada 2008); current predator density and caribou mortality rate; existing land use; legal or illegal harvest; other mortality sources; natural disturbance rate; habitat quantity, quality and spatial configuration; and underlying assumptions of management actions.

Throughout this methodological framework, ‘functional habitat’, is defined as caribou habitat that is sufficiently old to provide winter forage11, has comparatively small areas of young forest12 and anthropogenic footprint (i.e., corridors and clearings), and is of sufficient size13 to provide individual caribou with opportunities to space away from predators. (See also McCutchen et al. 2009.)

3.1.2.2 Future Range Condition

Effective caribou action plans require a future-oriented outlook that combines our current scientific understanding with plausible scenarios of landscape change. The primary concerns for caribou management are whether combined range disturbance is expected to increase or decrease relative to current conditions over the next 50 to 100 years, and whether habitat restoration mechanisms are likely to be effective over time. Other issues are the anticipated trends in disturbance (including by other tenure holders), and where increased risk is most likely to occur. Thus, scenario analysis is a key methodology for caribou action planning.

Scenarios are plausible, but structurally different descriptions of how the future might unfold (Duinker and Greig 2007; Mahmoud et al. 2009). Computer-based scenario simulations can be used to assess the influence of assumptions or management approaches under changing landscape conditions, and to explore alternative strategies and key uncertainties for mitigating cumulative effects (Schneider et al. 2003; Francis and Hamm 2009). Dynamic landscape models also help synthesize our current understanding and hypotheses into a predictive framework that supports decision making; this is also an important part of adaptive management (see section 3.2.3).

10 The Environment Canada (2008) disturbance-recruitment relationship appears to underestimate recruitment for some Quebec and NWT ranges and overestimates recruitment for several ranges (Quebec and British Columbia). Implications should be acknowledged in caribou action plans.11 As defined by each regional working group using the criteria provided earlier in section 3.1.2.1. 12 As defined by each regional working group using the criteria provided earlier in section 3.1.2.1.13 As defined by each regional working group. Areas less than 50 km2 do not appear to be sufficiently large to sustain caribou over the long-term (Culling et al. 2006; O'Brien et al. 2006); available research indicates that larger undisturbed areas provide more opportunity for caribou to reduce overlap with predators.

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 10

As shown in Figure 2, habitat scenario simulations, also known as dynamic landscape modeling, should be used to forecast future conditions resulting from all land uses, natural disturbance, and apparent competition. This requires information on:

• natural disturbance regimes;

• plausible land use scenarios that capture probable and possible activities of the forest, mining, energy (oil/gas/hydro/nuclear), transportation, residential, and recreational sectors;

• forecast changes in predator and other prey abundance (i.e., mortality risk information); and

• the possible influence of climate change (Schneider et al. 2009).

It is particularly important to evaluate interactions of limiting and regulating factors (Thomas 1992). Suggested data sources for assessing future range condition are summarized in Appendix 3.

The disturbance-population relationship developed by Environment Canada (2008) is limited in its ability to simulate future conditions. It requires spatially explicit analyses on the overlap between natural and man-made disturbances, and this cannot be meaningfully projected into the future14. Regional working groups may want to consider applying the Sorensen et al. (2008) relationship and its more recent revision (Schneider et al. 2010), as they do not rely on spatially explicit analyses to forecast future population trends and mortality risk.

Ecosystem resilience refers to the ability of a system, community, or species to absorb natural and industrial disturbance without altering its fundamental structure and stability (Holling 1973; Gunderson 2000; Weaver et al. 1996). A concern with sensitive species such as boreal caribou that have low resilience is the potential for system shifts resulting from combined anthropogenic and natural disturbances. Climate change and expansion of white-tailed deer and other predators could push the existing moose-caribou-predator system into new and possibly irreversible domains (ALT 2009; Schneider et al. 2009, 2010). Information on natural disturbance rates, predator/prey expansion, and possible climate change implications should be drawn from best available sources (such as regional climate change forecasts from Canadian Climate Impacts and Scenarios15; the Canadian Climate Change Scenarios Network16; and the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium17). RWGs should consider the environmental niche analysis included in Environment Canada (2008) and may choose to include specific scenarios that relate to climate change as part of their future range condition evaluation. Recommended management measures (see section 3.2 below) should also reflect the potential impacts of climate change if they are deemed to be significant for a given region.

Finally, regional caribou action plans should also consider uncertainty associated with restoring functional habitat in anthropogenically disturbed boreal forest. Habitat recovery will require at least 40 years (Schaefer and Pruitt 1991; Bradshaw et al. 1995; Dunford et al. 2006; ALT 2009). Since industrial forestry on the scale of current operations has not extended longer than 40 years in most jurisdictions, the feasibility of restoring functional habitat has not yet been documented. This uncertainty reinforces the importance of delineating and conserving best available habitat as the foundation of management recommendations.

14 Environment Canada's supplementary national analyses will include aspatial projections and, if available, these should be considered for future range condition analyses by regional working groups. 15 http://www.cics.uvic.ca/scenarios/16 http://www.cccsn.ec.gc.ca/?page=main&lang=en17 http://pacificclimate.org/

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 11

3.1.2.3 Delineating Best Available Habitat

A common conclusion from virtually all boreal caribou studies is that large areas of continuous caribou habitat are preferred to a fragmented distribution of habitat patches (e.g., Smith et al. 2000; Schaefer 2003; O’Brien et al. 2006; Courtois et al. 2008; Fortin et al. 2008). Ultimately, caribou population size and management effectiveness is related to the amount of functional habitat. Long-term suitability for caribou persistence is enhanced in areas that have the following attributes: larger, more continuous habitat; less human footprint; lower perimeter to area ratio; and further from predator ‘source habitat’.

‘Best available habitat’ is considered to consist of an area of suitable habitat (as defined by regional working groups for current range condition) that is:

• currently undisturbed or functional18 ;

• disproportionately important for caribou (e.g., discrete calving areas, refuge habitat19, other concentration areas, movement corridors, and other sites or areas identified by the regional working group); and

• structurally and functionally connected with other areas of suitable habitat (i.e., inter-patch movement at this distance has been documented, with higher frequency movements assumed to represent higher connectivity; the intervening matrix has low mortality risk [Haynes and Cronin 2004]; no known barriers to movement exist; the size of the two patches improves connectivity potential [O’Brien et al. 2006]; and connectivity potential is inversely related to range fragmentation [O’Brien et al. 2006]).

Such areas of ‘best available habitat’ should form the foundation for self-sustaining caribou populations in action plans (see section 3.2.1).

In some ranges, large functional or connected areas no longer exist, so the largest relatively undisturbed areas should be identified as best available habitat. Habitat restoration will be critical in such degraded ranges and predator and other prey control will likely be needed in and around such ranges to allow caribou populations to persist while habitat recovery is underway.

3.1.3 Other Risk Factors

Other direct and indirect risk factors should be considered and discussed to make action plans comprehensive and transparent (Figure 2) and to translate ecologically-based delineation of best available habitat into delineation of ‘best conservation opportunities’. The factors listed below should be considered for identifying best conservation opportunities given the regional working group’s understanding of future conditions and external influences on the planning area:

• the condition of adjacent caribou ranges as potential sources of immigration or enhanced risk (i.e., isolated ranges within a highly disturbed matrix have increased risk);

• the location of the range relative to the southern boreal caribou distribution boundary (where closer equals higher risk of apparent competition, habitat loss, and climate-change related effects, and reduced ecosystem resilience);

• the current knowledge base and monitoring (i.e., nonexistent or old data may delay implementation and increase the risk of extirpation);

• tenures and boundaries that influence the condition of caribou range and any land use scenarios considered in future range condition analyses; and

• current and proposed management actions.

Note that a focus only on best practices and habitat management will not always directly address predation risk, particularly in declining caribou populations; predator population management measures should be considered by the RWGs under such circumstances.

18 See description in section 3.1.2.1 and McCutchen et al. (2009).19 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.

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 12

3.2 DEFINING MANAGEMENT MEASURESCBFA caribou action plans should include measurable criteria and objectives linked to principles described earlier in section 2.2. Including objectives that are SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound) will provide a foundation to track implementation success and apply adaptive management (see section 3.2.3).

3.2.1 Applying Disturbance Thresholds

It is clear that planning and mitigation of activities at local project scales has not successfully maintained caribou in many regions of Canada. Objectives-based cumulative effects management is well established for air and water quality, but represents a new, innovative, and often contentious approach to integrated land management. With this approach, limits on land use-based impacts help to sustain or restore desired landscape conditions while still allowing economic and social objectives to be met. Explicit regional or sub-regional objectives, frequently called targets or thresholds, can be used to inform decision-making on the regulation and assessment of individual activities or projects (Kennett 2006; Salmo Consulting Inc. 2006; Antoniuk et al. 2009).

Total disturbance is a more robust predictor of the ability of a given range to support a sustainable caribou population than is the amount of suitable habitat alone (Environment Canada 2008; Sorensen et al. 2008; ALT 2009; Dzus et al. 2010; Schneider et al. 2010). Disturbance thresholds thereby provide a tool to identify how much cumulative human disturbance poses a socially unacceptable risk to the persistence of a caribou population. Because boreal caribou appear to be among the most sensitive species to disturbance, caribou disturbance thresholds may also be valuable as a precautionary approach to biodiversity maintenance in Canada’s boreal forest.

While the probability of caribou persistence is inversely related to combined disturbance (i.e., natural and anthropogenic), there appears to be no absolute value that differentiates sustainable and unsustainable conditions across the boreal forest. Caribou disturbance thresholds must therefore be risk-based and reflect both current range conditions and anticipated future trends over at least 40 years. This reflects the minimum time needed to restore the direct and indirect effects of disturbed habitat (Vors et al. 2007; ALT 2009).

The CBFA mandates delineation of disturbance thresholds for the management of critical habitat for caribou (CBFA Decision Note Goal 3, May 2010). However, regional working groups should acknowledge that the disturbance threshold approach has high uncertainty and adopt a logical and transparent approach when developing their recommendations. Inherent uncertainty has most frequently been addressed by building in a safety margin when establishing thresholds (Bull 1991, 1992). The ultimate challenge for action plans is to identify an ‘acceptable level of risk to caribou’ in each planning area to maintain or enhance the probability of self-sustaining - and ideally resilient - local populations while enabling economic and social demands for forest products and other resources. The planning flow chart (Figure 1) proposes an iterative process with science-based recommendations evaluated against desired social, economic, and political outcomes.

While the ultimate responsibility lies with governments to manage cumulative disturbances with multiple industries on the same land base, CBFA caribou action plans can propose disturbance thresholds for areas or footprints within their sphere of influence. They thereby demonstrate that forestry’s influence on the risk of caribou extirpation will be kept as low as possible at any point in time and space.

While there is no standardized approach to disturbance threshold development, various approaches for planning areas in both large continuous ranges and small discrete ranges are introduced below. Decision-making systems must be sufficiently flexible to manage on the basis of risk rather than absolute thresholds, and to be able to adapt in response to new information (Dzus et al. 2010). Because there are significant uncertainties surrounding the threshold approach to caribou management, it is strongly recommended that a series of long-term studies and monitoring protocols be established to reduce the uncertainty surrounding this potentially valuable management tool. (See preamble and section 3.2.3.)

The most practical and effective approach to achieving caribou conservation and economic values is to link disturbance thresholds to land management zones defined by the principles identified in this framework. This integrated land management system should be designed to maintain high quality, older conifer-lichen forests in a pattern that minimizes mortality risk by allowing caribou to avoid predators and human activity through spatial separation (Smith et al. 2000; O’Brien et al. 2006; ALT

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 13

2009; Courbin et al. 2009). A zonation approach also provides regional working groups with a good opportunity to explicitly consider linkages and gaps with protected area planning efforts, as shown in Figure 1.

Regional working groups should refer to threshold guidance being developed by Environment Canada, other references on integrated threshold management systems (AENV and CASA 1999; see also caribou discussion in Antoniuk et al. 2009), and knowledgeable regional experts. The CBFA Science Committee and National Working Group for Goals 2 and 3 are encouraged to refine the disturbance threshold approach using expert workshops.

This framework introduces three integrated zonation-threshold options for consideration by regional working groups. Selection of the most appropriate integrated land management option will depend on a variety of ecological and socio-economic factors in a given planning area. (See also the preamble to this methodological framework.) Table 1 briefly describes each option, notes its relevance to large continuous and small discrete ranges, and summarizes advantages and disadvantages of each option relative to risk of caribou decline, resilience to natural disturbance, ease of implementation, and need for long-term spatial planning. Figures 3 through 5 provide conceptual schematics of each option. Appendix 5 provides additional information and discusses examples relevant to both large continuous and small discrete or disturbed ranges. It includes a more detailed version of Table 1 that was used to prepare the summary presented here.

As noted previously, a common conclusion from virtually all boreal caribou studies is that large areas of continuous caribou habitat are preferred to fragmented patches of habitat (e.g., Smith et al. 2000; Schaefer 2003; O’Brien et al. 2006; Courtois et al. 2008; Fortin et al. 2008). All available evidence therefore suggests that the lowest risk option for maintaining local caribou populations is to concentrate land use into a development zone and separate these areas as far as possible from large, undisturbed caribou conservation zones (Courtois et al. 2004;

Courbin et al. 2009) for 80 years or more. As discussed below and in Appendix 5, a single range-wide threshold provides the least flexibility, with multi-zone options offering the most flexibility, in this regard.

The following basic steps, applicable to all land management system options, are shown in Figure 1 and described in more detail in Appendix 5:

1. Establish a risk-based local population objective.

2. Identify the minimum area of functional habitat required for a self-sustaining caribou population in a caribou conservation zone (two- and three-zone options only20).

3. Select one or more areas of ‘best available habitat’ to provide minimum functional habitat area in a caribou conservation zone; provide all requirements for a self-sustaining local caribou population; and reflect current caribou distribution (two- and three-zone options only).

4. Establish risk-based disturbance thresholds for each zone.

5. Describe the proposed integrated land management system option(s) for further socio-economic trade-off evaluation.

20 The one-zone option provides a working landscape in which both conservation and economic outcomes are achieved, without specifically identifying functional habitat areas for

conservation-specific management. Instead, suitable caribou habitat is provided at the zone scale, but the location of these areas changes over time (e.g., Armstrong 1998).

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 14

Desc

riptio

n

Relia

nce

on L

ong-

Term

Spa

tial

Plan

ning

/M

anag

emen

t

High

est

Inte

rmed

iate

Low

est

Ease

of D

esig

n/

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Easie

st

Inte

rmed

iate

Mos

t Diffi

cult

Resil

ienc

e to

Nat

ural

Di

stur

banc

e

Low

est

Inte

rmed

iate

High

est

Risk

of C

arib

ou

Decl

ine

High

est

Inte

rmed

iate

Low

est

Smal

l Di

scre

te

Rang

e

X X

Larg

e,

Conti

nuou

s Ra

nge

X X X

Desc

riptio

n

Sing

le m

ulti-

use

zone

m

anag

ed fo

r bot

h in

dust

rial a

ctivi

ty a

nd

cario

bu c

onse

rvati

on

(Fig

ure

3)

‘Car

ibou

con

serv

ation

zo

ne’ m

anag

ed to

ach

ieve

a

self-

sust

aini

ng c

arib

ou

popu

latio

n. ‘D

velo

pmen

t zo

ne’ m

anag

ed to

ach

ieve

ec

onom

ic b

enefi

ts fr

om

indu

stria

l dev

elop

men

t (F

igur

e 4)

As p

er tw

o zo

ne, b

ut w

ith

a ‘sp

ecia

l man

agem

ent

zone

’ man

aged

as a

re

stric

ted

deve

lopm

ent

buffe

r to

redu

ce

pred

ation

/mor

talit

y ris

k w

ithin

the

cons

erva

tion

zone

or i

mpr

ove

conn

ectiv

ity b

etw

een

two

cons

erva

tion

zone

are

as

(Fig

ure

5)

Syst

em

One

-Zon

e

Two-

Zone

Thre

e-zo

ne

21 A

dvan

tage

s and

disa

dvan

tage

s are

furt

her e

labo

rate

d up

on in

App

endi

x 5.

Tabl

e 1.

Adv

anta

ges a

nd d

isad

vant

ages

of o

ne-,

two-

, and

thre

e-zo

ne in

tegr

ated

land

man

agem

ent s

yste

ms 21

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 15

Figure 3. Conceptual schematic of one-zone management system

White boxes represent cutblock-road system.

Figure 4. Conceptual schematics of two-zone management systems

A) B)

Figure 5. Conceptual schematic of three-zone management system

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 16

Next Steps

The regional working group should describe one or more recommended disturbance threshold options as part of the caribou action plan management measures section. A socio-economic evaluation of the candidate zone and range disturbance threshold option(s) will then be conducted. (See the preamble to this framework and Figures 1 and 2.) This will allow trade-offs between caribou extirpation risk and socio-economic values to be explicitly evaluated and discussed among CBFA signatories prior to making final recommendations.

3.2.2 Best Management Practices

CBFA regional working groups should include a discussion of best management practices for caribou conservation. Such ‘best practices’ are frequently referenced in caribou conservation planning documents (e.g., ALT 2009) or are identified as strategies to be developed and implemented as part of provincial caribou conservation plans (e.g., OMNR 2009, Pg. 16). Dzus et al. (2010, section 6) also provide guidance on science-based conservation measures. In a recent Forest Product Association of Canada (FPAC)-sponsored report it was noted that there has been “noformalmonitoringtoevaluatetheeffectivenessofthese(mitigation)measuresintermsoftheirvalueforachievingcaribourecoverygoals” (FPAC 2008). Despite this lack of effectiveness evaluation, the FPAC report and a Golder (2009) habitat restoration report rank operating practices on their ‘perceived’ effectiveness. Regional working groups should review national and regional/provincial documentation relating to best management practises when developing their CBFA caribou action plans and concentrate on those practices rated as being highly effective. Where possible, experimental designs should be set up to test, learn from, and document the effectiveness of such practices. (See suggested adaptive management measures below.) Consideration should be given to practices that influence both habitat suitability and mortality risk. Including implementation and effectiveness monitoring programs will increase the likelihood that management practices are systematically evaluated as part of an adaptive management system.

3.2.3 Adaptive Management Measures

The CBFA embraces active adaptive management in concert with the precautionary approach as foundational to achieving high degrees of social and economic prosperity and ecological integrity concurrently (CBFA, P. 8 #10). The CBFA defines “Activeadaptivemanagement”asinvolving“anexplicitrecognitionofuncertaintyabouttheoutcomeofsomemanagementactivitiesandtheneedtolearnbydoingthatincludescarefulobservationoftheeffectstoguidechangeovertime.Inmostcases,thiswouldinvolve(a)testingalternativemanagementinacontrolledenvironment;(b)monitoringthealternativepracticesagainstbothconventionalpracticesandanaturalconditionbaseline;(c)analyzingresultsagainststatedperformanceobjectivesanddocumentingunexpectedancillaryeffects;and(d)decidingwhethertoadapt-adaptationoccursuponreasonableindicationofperformanceagainsttheobjectiveswheretherearenounexpectedancillaryeffects,orwhenanyencounteredaredocumentedanddeemedacceptable…” (CBFA Signatories 2010, p. 4). In a recent report to the Forest Stewardship Council (Canada), Dzus et al. (2010) note that in some instances active adaptive management may be impractical, and passive adaptive management should be pursued when there is a real possibility of learning by doing.

As noted by Dzus et al. (2010), “(T)here are several hurdles to deal with in attempting (active) adaptive management for boreal caribou:

• therearemanyinter-relatedfactorsaffectingcaribou(…)necessitatingexperimentalmanagementdesignsthathavethecapacitytoincorporateuncertaintyassociatedwithsuchfactors;

• responsetimesarelikelytoberelativelylongandsotheimpactofamanagementregimewillnotbefullyapparentformanyyears(perhapsdecades)afteritsimplementation;

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 17

• experimentalmanagementiscostly,intermsofthemanipulationofmanagementpracticesandtheequipmentandeffortneededtodetectcaribouresponses;and

• thepotentialforunforeseencomplicationsislarge(e.g.,logisticaldifficultiesincarryingoutprescriptions,changingregulatoryregimes,andunpredictablemarketforces).”

That said, the CBFA is in a unique position to actually apply active adaptive management experiments at the regional, and potentially national, scale. Different management applications could be applied to different ranges, with the CBFA Goal 2 and 3 National Working Group serving as a coordinating body. Such an approach would obviously require coordination and collaboration with a wide variety of other organizations. Johnson (1999) and Schreiber et al (2004) provide excellent reviews of adaptive management and are recommended reading for regional working groups.

4. SUMMARYThe Methodological Framework for Caribou Action Planning is a guiding document for Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement) regional working group members and supporting planning practitioners. The framework was developed to help CBFA caribou action plans meet a consistent and high standard of quality and completeness. It recommends the following steps be incorporated into boreal caribou management plans.

1. Include an explicit action planning goal and defining principles.

2. Use designated local population range(s) as the foundation for defining a planning area to be consistent with federal critical habitat guidance. Buffers to address predation risk from surrounding areas should be included; this may require evaluation of data from adjacent tenures and jurisdictions.

3. Evaluate existing government management and recovery plans using the evaluation tool included in Appendix 4.

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 and consider comprehensive data on the influence of natural disturbance, all land uses, and current management policies on current mortality risk and habitat suitability (its quantity, quality, and spatial configuration). Potential data sources are summarized in Appendix 2.

6. 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 3.

7. Identify ‘best available habitat’ using the criteria provided above in Section 3.1.2.3.

8. Apply a disturbance threshold approach, considering the linked zone-total disturbance threshold integrated land management concepts and approaches provided in the framework (Appendix 5).

9. Include recommendations for integrated land management system options and best management practices.

10. Include adaptive management provisions.

11. Identify implementation roles and responsibilities.

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 18

5. REFERENCESAENV (Alberta Environment) and CASA (Clean Air Strategic Alliance). 1999. Application of critical, target, and monitoring loads for the evaluation and management of acid deposition. Prepared by Clean Air Strategic Alliance, Target Loading Subgroup, Alberta Environment, Edmonton. Publication No. T/472.

ALT (Athabasca Landscape Team). 2009. Athabasca caribou landscape management options report. Alberta Caribou Committee, Edmonton, AB. Available online at: http://www.albertacariboucommittee.ca/PDF/Athabasca-Caribou.pdf

Alberta Woodland Caribou Recovery Team. 2005. Alberta woodland caribou recovery plan 2004/05-2013/14. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Species at Risk Recovery Plan No. 4. Edmonton, AB. 48 pp. Available online by searching for: ISBN: 0-7785-4076-6 (Online Edition)

Antoniuk, T., T. Raabis, B. Culling, D. Culling, and A. Creagh. 2007. 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. 2009. 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. 172. Available online at: http://www.esrfunds.org/pdf/172.pdf

Armstrong, E.R.. 1998. Integration of woodland caribou habitat management and forest management in northern Ontario - current status and issues. Rangifer Special Issue No. 10: 221-230.

Bastille-Rousseau, G., D. Fortin, and C. Dussault. 2010. Inference from habitat selection analysis depends on foraging strategies. Journal of Animal Ecology. 79: 1157-1163.

Bentham, P. 2007. Audit of operating practices and mitigation measures employed within woodland caribou ranges. Prepared for: Caribou Landscape Management Association and the Forest Products Association of Canada by Golder Associates, Edmonton, AB.

Bergerud, A.T., R.D. Jakimchuk, and D.R. Carruthers. 1984. The buffalo of the North: caribou (Rangifer tarandus) and human developments. Arctic. 37: 7-22.

Bradshaw, C. J. A., Hebert, D. M., Rippin, B. A., and S. Boutin. 1995. Winter peatland habitat selection by woodland caribou in northeastern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 73: 1567-1574.

Brodeur, V., J-P. Ouellet, R. Courtois, and D. Fortin. 2008. Habitat selection by black bears in an intensively logged forest. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 86(11): 1307-1316.

Bull, K.R. 1991. The critical loads/levels approach to gaseous pollutant emission control. Environmental Pollution. 69:105-123.

Bull, K.R. 1992. An introduction to critical loads. Environmental Pollution. 77:173-176.

CBFA Signatories. 2010. The Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement: An Historic Agreement Signifying a New Era of Joint Leadership in the Boreal Forest. Available online at: http://www.canadianborealforestagreement.com/index.php/en/media/#media-kit

Courbin, N., D. Fortin, C. Dussault, and R. Courtois. 2009. Landscape management for woodland caribou: the protection of forest blocks influences wolf-caribou co-occurrence. Landscape Ecology. 24: 1375-1388.

Courtois, R., J-P. Ouellet, C. Dussault, and A. Gingras. 2004. Forest management guidelines for forest-dwelling caribou in Quebec. Forestry Chronicle. 80, 598–607.

Courtois, R., A. Gingras, D. Fortin, A. Sebbane, B. Rochette, and L. Breton. 2008. Demographic and behavioural response of woodland caribou to forest harvesting. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 38: 2837-2849.

Coxson, D.S., and J. Marsh. 2001. Lichen chronosequences (post-fire and post-harvest) in lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) forest of northern interior British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Botany. 79: 1449-1464.

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 19

Culling, D.E., B.A. Culling, T.J. Raabis, and A.C. Creagh. 2006. Ecology and seasonal habitat selection of boreal caribou in the Snake-Sathaneh watershed, British Columbia 2000 to 2004. Prepared for Canadian Forest Products Ltd., Fort Nelson, British Columbia.

DeCesare, N.J., M. Hebblewhite, H.S. Robinson, and M. Musiani. 2009. Endangered, apparently: the role of apparent competition in endangered species management. Animal Conservation. 13: 5-62.

Duinker, P.N. and L.A. Greig. 2007. Scenario analysis in environmental impact assessment: improving explorations of the future. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 27: 206-219.

Dunford, J.S., P.D. McLoughlin, F. Dalerum, and S. Boutin. 2006. Lichen abundance in the peatlands of northern Alberta: implications for boreal caribou. Ecoscience. 13: 469-474.

Dzus, E., J. Ray, I. Thompson, and C. Wedeles. 2010. Caribou and the National Boreal Standard: report of the FSC science panel. Prepared for the Forest Stewardship Council (Canada). Available online at: http://www.fsccanada.org/docs/100726_fscsciencepanel_recommendationsreport_final.pdf

Environment Canada. 2008. Scientific Review for the Identification of Critical Habitat for Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population in Canada, August 2008. Environment Canada.

Fahrig, L. 2001. How much habitat is enough? Biological Conservation. 100: 65-74.

Faille, G., C. Dussault, J-P. Oullet, D. Fortin, R. Courtois, M-H. St-Laurent and C. Dussault. 2010. Range fidelity: the missing link between caribou decline and habitat alteration. Biological Conservation. 143: 2840-2850.

Fortin, D., R. Courtois, P. Etcheverry, C. Dussault, and A. Gingras. 2008. Winter selection of landscapes by woodland caribou: behavioural response to geographical gradients in habitat attributes. Journal of Applied Ecology. 45: 1392-1400.

FPAC (Forest Product Association of Canada). 2008. Woodland caribou recovery: audit of operating practices and mitigation measures employed within woodland caribou ranges. Ottawa, ON. 12 Pp. Available online at: http://fpac.ca/index.php/publications2/publication-viewer/woodland-caribou-recovery/

Francis, S., and J. Hamm. 2009. North Yukon Planning Region Land Use Scenarios Report, ALCES Land Use Modelling Results for the North Yukon Planning Region. Prepared for the North Yukon Planning Commission. Available online at: http://nypc.planyukon.ca/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=102&Itemid=338

Golder (Golder Associates Ltd.). 2009. Caribou Habitat Restoration Pilot Study. Submitted to: ConocoPhillips Canada, Suncor Energy, and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

Gurd, D.B., T. Nudds, and Rivard, D.H. 2001. Conservation of mammals in Eastern North American wildlife reserves: how small is too small? Conservation Biology. 15: 1355–1363.

Gunderson, L.H. 2000. Ecological resilience – in theory and application. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 31: 425-439.

Hatter, I.W., and W.A. Bergerud. 1991. Moose recruitment, adult mortality and rate of change. Alces. 27: 65-73.

Haynes, K.J., and J.T. Cronin. 2004. Confounding of patch quality and matrix effects in herbivore movement studies. Landscape Ecology. 19: 119-124.

Holling, C. S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 4: 1-23.

Houle, M., D. Fortin, C. Dussault, R. Courtois, and J-P Ouellet. 2010. Cumulative effects of forestry on habitat use by gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the boreal forest. Landscape Ecology. 25: 419-433.

James, A.R.C., S. Boutin, D.M. Hebert, and A.B. Rippin. 2004. Spatial separation of caribou from moose and its relation to predation by wolves. Journal of Wildlife Management. 68: 799-809.

Johnson, B. L. 1999. The role of adaptive management as an operational approach for resource management agencies. Conservation Ecology. 3(2): 8. Available online at: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art8/

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 20

Kennett, S. 2006. From science-based thresholds to regulatory limits: implementation issues for cumulative effects management. Prepared for Environment Canada, Northern Division, by Canadian Institute of Resources Law, Calgary. Available online at: http://www.ceamf.ca/03_reference/Reference_ThresholdWorkshop.htm

Latham, A.D.M. 2009. Wolf ecology and caribou-primary prey-wolf spatial relationships in low productivity peatland complexes in northeastern Alberta. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta.

Lee, P., M. Hanneman, J. Gysbers, R. Cheng, and W. Smith. 2010. Atlas of Canada’s intact forest landscapes. Available online at: http://www.globalforestwatch.ca/Anniversary2010/01CanadaAtlasIFL/01CanadaAtlas_IFL_highres.pdf

Lesmerises, R., J-P. Ouellet and M-H. St-Laurent. 2011. Assessing terrestrial lichen biomass using ecoforest maps: a suitable approach to plan conservation areas for forest-dwelling caribou. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 41: 632-642.

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. 2009. A formal framework for scenario development in support of environmental decision-making. Environmental Modeling and Software. 24: 798-808.

Manitoba Conservation. 2005. Manitoba’s conservation and recovery strategy for boreal woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou). Winnipeg, MB. 22 pp. Available online at: http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/wildlife/sar/pdf/bw_caribou_strategy.pdf

McCutchen, N., S. Boutin, E. Dzus, D. Hervieux, L. Morgantini, A. Saxena, K. Smith, D. Stepnisky, and C. Wallis. 2009. Identifying intactness priority zones within woodland caribou ranges. Prepared and endorsed by the Alberta Caribou Committee Research and Monitoring Subcommittee.

Metsaranta, J.M. 2007. Assessing the length of the post-disturbance recovery period for woodland caribou habitat after fire and logging in west-central Manitoba. Rangifer Special Issue No. 17: 103-109.

Morneau, C., and S. Payette. 1989. Postfire lichen-spruce woodland recovery at the limit of the boreal forest in northern Quebec. Canadian Journal of Botany. 67: 2770-2782.

NYPC (North Yukon Planning Commission). 2009. Final recommended North Yukon Land Use Plan. Available online at: http://www.planyukon.ca/index.php/documents/cat_view/79-commission-documents/81-north-yukon-planning-commission-documents/110-final-plan.html

O’Brien, D., M. Manseau, A.Fall, and M.-J. Fortin. 2006. Testing the importance of spatial configuration of winter habitat for woodland caribou: an application of graph theory. Biological Conservation. 130: 70-83.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2009. Ontario’s woodland caribou conservation plan. 28 pp. Available online by searching for: ISBN 978-1-4435-1383-8

Salmo Consulting Inc. 2006. Developing and implementing thresholds in the Northwest Territories - a discussion paper. Prepared for Environment Canada, Northern Division by Salmo Consulting Inc., Calgary. Available online at: http://www.ceamf.ca/03_reference/Reference_ThresholdWorkshop.htm

Schaefer, J.A. 2003. Long-term range recession and the persistence of caribou in the taiga. Conservation Biology. 17: 1435-1439.

Schaefer, J.A., and W.O. Pruitt. 1991. Fire and woodland caribou in southeastern Manitoba. Wildlife Monographs. 116: 1-39.

Schaefer, J.A., A.M. Veitch, F.H. Harrington, W.K. Brown, J.B. Theberge, and S.N. Luttich. 2001. Fuzzy structure and spatial dynamics of a declining woodland caribou population. Oecologia 126: 507-514.

Schneider, R.R., J.B. Stelfox, S. Boutin, and S. Wasel. 2003. Managing the cumulative impacts of land uses in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin: a modeling approach. Conservation Ecology. 7(1): 8. Available online at: http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss1/art8

Schneider, R.R., A. Hamann, D. Farr, X. Wang, and S. Boutin. 2009. Potential effects of climate change on ecosystem distribution in Alberta. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 34: 1001-1010.

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 21

Schneider, R.R., G. Hauer, W.L. Adamowicz, and S. Boutin. 2010. Triage for conserving populations of threatened species: The case of woodland caribou in Alberta. Biological Conservation. 143: 1812-1821.

Schreiber, E.S.G., A.R. Bearlin, S.J. Nicol, and C.R. Todd. 2004. Adaptive management: a synthesis of current understanding and effective application. Ecological Management & Restoration. 5: 177–182. Available online at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2004.00206.x/full

Sleep, D.J.H., and C. Loehle. 2010. Validation of a demographic model for woodland caribou. Journal of Wildlife Management. 74: 1508-1512.

Smith, K.G., E.J. Ficht, D. Hobson, T.C. Sorensen, and D. Hervieux. 2000. Winter distribution of woodland caribou in relation to clear-cut logging in west-central Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 78: 1433-1440.

Sorensen, T., P. D. McLoughlin, D. Hervieux, E. Dzus, J. Nolan, B. Wynes, and S. Boutin. 2008. Determining Sustainable Levels of Cumulative Effects for Boreal Caribou. Journal of Wildlife Management. 72: 900-905.

Thomas, D.C. 1992. A review of wolf-caribou relationships and conservation in Canada. Pages 261-274 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, 25-27 August, 1992. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, University of Alberta.

Tracz, B., J.L. LaMontagne, E.M. Bayne, and S. Boutin. 2010. Annual and monthly range fidelity of female boreal woodland caribou in response to petroleum development. Rangifer. 30: 31-44.

Vors, L.S., J.A. Schaefer, B.A. Pond, A.R. Rodgers, and B.R. Patterson. 2007. Woodland caribou extirpation and anthropogenic landscape disturbance in Ontario. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71: 1249-1256.

Weaver, J.L., P.C. Paquet, and L.F. Ruggierio. 1996. Resilience and conservation of large carnivores in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology. 10: 964-976.

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 22

APPENDICES

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 23

APPENDIX A. Glossaryapparent 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-mediated apparent competition in which wolves or other predators increase numerically 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.

best available habitat - areas of suitable caribou habitat in each range where the 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.

boreal caribou - woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) boreal populations, as designated by Environment Canada (2008).

caribou conservation zone - areas where caribou conservation would be the designated and enforceable land use priority. These need to be large enough

(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 footprints restricted to very little or no anthropogenic disturbance, together with continuous predator control (as needed) until functional habitat is restored.

connectivity - connectivity refers to the degree to which a landscape facilitates or impedes movement of organisms among habitat patches.

Structural connectivity is the linkage of adjacent habitat patches. 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. The connectivity of large suitable habitat patches is thus assumed to be an important attribute of suitable habitat (Bergerud et al. 1984; Courtois et al. 2008).

critical habitat - the resources and environmental conditions required for persistence of local populations of boreal caribou throughout their

current distribution in Canada. The quantity, quality, and spatial configuration of resources and conditions may be influenced by both natural and human-induced factors. (EC 2008).

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 1991); 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).

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 affect 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.

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 24

functional habitat - caribou habitat that is sufficiently old to provide winter forage22, has comparatively small areas of young forest23 and a

limited anthropogenic footprint (i.e., few corridors and clearings), and is large enough24 to provide caribou with space to avoid predators.

habitat alteration - the change that occurs when habitat becomes unavailable, but management intention exists to return the habitat to a

useable state within timelines outlined in existing management plans. (See also habitat loss.)

habitat loss - the loss that occurs when habitat is altered to such an extent that it will be permanently unavailable; when there is no

management intention to revert the habitat to a usable state; or when cumulative impacts circumvent efforts to return it to a usable habitat. (See also habitat alteration.)

habitat restoration - the product of reforestation or other reclamation activities. It indicates the 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 after a disturbance.

habitat suitability - caribou habitat availability, quality, and spatial configuration at a specified point in time.

indirect predation risk - landscape conditions in habitat not used by caribou which may affect primary prey (moose, deer, beaver) and predator

abundance, such that these predators move into caribou range or calving areas, thereby increasing mortality risk (James et al. 2004; Culling et al. 2006; Latham 2009).

lambda ( ) - the finite rate of population increase (also termed the growth multiplier), which 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 recruitment (R) of females (assuming a 50: 50 sex ratio in calf production and equal survival of sexes to the time of census) and annual adult female mortality (M; calculated as 1 – S, where S equals the survival rate) 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 defined area distinguished spatially from areas occupied by other groups of caribou. Local populations experience limited exchange with other groups, such that population dynamics are driven primarily by local factors affecting birth and death rates, rather than migration among groups (Environment Canada 2008)

mortality risk

- includes combined risk of mortality from predation, legal and illegal harvest, disease and parasites, vehicle collisions, and natural causes.

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).

22 As defined by each regional working group using the criteria provided earlier in section 3.1.2.1. 23 As defined by each regional working group using the criteria provided earlier in section 3.1.2.1.24 As defined by each regional working group. Areas less than 50 km2 do not appear to be sufficiently large to sustain caribou over the long-term (Culling et al. 2006; O'Brien et al. 2006);

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 25

range condition - includes current and future habitat suitability and mortality risk.

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; it provides for the recovery of endangered or threatened species, and encourages the management of other species to prevent them from becoming at risk (http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/).

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 intensive management intervention (Environment Canada 2008).

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 26

APPENDIX B. Data Sources for Current Range Condition Analyses

Metric Variable Data Sources25 Notes

Administrative Units

Designated caribou range(s) boundary/ boundaries

GIS data from provincial, territorial, or federal wildlife manager(s)

Reference to designated boundaries will be required even where refined range analyses are completed.

Forest Management Unit boundaries

GIS data from regulator or FMU holder Needed for implementation planning and future land use forecasts.

Provincial boundaries

Canadian Geopolitical Boundaries dataset from GeoBase

Needed for implementation planning and SARA reporting.

CBFA region and protected area boundaries

GIS data from CBFA, and geospatial data for protected areas from provincial, territorial, or federal governments

Needed for implementation planning and CBFA reporting.

25 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.

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 27

Metric Variable Data Sources Notes

Habitat Suitability

Vegetation classification and physical features inventory

Geospatial data (vector or raster format) from provincial, territorial, or federal land manager(s) or forest management company. May need to add geospatial data from a different source for water features, depending on the detail required.

Includes forest and non-forest vegetation types, non-vegetated types (rock, ice, sand dunes); rivers, lakes, reservoirs.

Forest seral stage/age

GIS data or age structure by forest type from provincial, territorial, or federal land manager(s) or forest management company

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.

Burned areas and date of burn

GIS shapefiles from federal, provincial, territorial, or FMU holder databases

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.

Vegetation types for recent burns

Taken from vegetation and physical features (land cover) inventory or expert opinion.

Needed to simulate future habitat suitability as burned areas are revegetated.

Caribou habitat quality ratings by vegetation type and seral stage/age

Published literature, habitat suitability indices, or expert opinion.

Used to develop relative rating of caribou habitat under current range composition and conditions

Sensitive and unique caribou habitat (refuge habitat; core areas)

Published literature or expert opinion Used to identify best available habitat, important for self-sustaining caribou populations.

Other prey habitat quality ratings by vegetation type and seral stage/age

Published literature, habitat suitability indices, or expert opinion

Used to develop relative rating of habitat for other prey under current range composition and conditions.

Predator habitat quality ratings by vegetation type and seral stage/age

Published literature, habitat suitability indices, or expert opinion

Used to develop relative rating of predator habitat under current range composition and conditions.

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 28

Metric Variable Data Sources Notes

Anthropogenic Land Use

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.

Cutblock 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.

In-block 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.

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) – is available from GeoGratis.

Includes all clearings: agricultural, community and residential; industrial and 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 – is available from GeoBase.

Includes all corridors: major and minor roads; vehicle, off-highway vehicle, and recreational trails; seismic lines; cut lines; railways; electrical transmission lines; and 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.

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 29

Metric Variable Data Sources Notes

Mortality Risk

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.

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

Use existing caribou geographic distribution from EC (2008).

Overall risk is inversely related to distance from the southern edge of boreal caribou distribution.

Caribou meta-population status and immigration potential from adjacent ranges and landscapes

Obtained from provincial, territorial, or federal wildlife manager(s) and relevant research.

Range-specific risk increases if range is isolated or adjacent to highly modified landscapes.

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 30

APPENDIX C. Data Sources for Future Range Condition Analyses

Metric Variable Data Sources Notes

Disturbance

Natural fire rate and size class distribution

GIS shapefiles from federal, provincial, territorial, or management unit (MU) holder databases or relevant research from region

Needed to forecast natural rates of habitat alteration at range scale (e.g., fire return interval).

Insect infestation rate and size class distribution

GIS shapefiles from federal, provincial, territorial, or MU holder databases or relevant research from region.

Needed to forecast natural rates of habitat alteration at range scale.

Avalanche rate and size class distribution

GIS shapefiles from federal, provincial, territorial, or MU holder databases or relevant research from region.

Needed to forecast natural rates of habitat alteration at range scale.

Natural post-disturbance successional trajectories

Relevant research from MU holder, government, or academia.

Required for each vegetation type.

Land Use Simulations

Average annual forest harvest volume or harvest volume scenario

Based on resource availability, published plans of FMU holder, or expert opinion.

Includes harvest area by forest type and seral stage.

Volume-area relationship by forest type and seral stage

Based on resource availability, published plans of FMU holder, or expert opinion.

Used to develop forest harvesting trajectories.

Volume-in block road length relationship

Based on resource availability, published plans of FMU holder, or expert opinion.

Used to develop forest harvesting trajectories.

Cutblock and in-block road reclamation trajectories

Based on resource availability, published plans of FMU holder, or expert opinion.

Used to simulate construction and reclamation rates of roads on forested land base.

Average annual oil and gas footprint area added or footprint growth scenario

Based on resource availability, published plans, or expert opinion.

Includes clearings, roads, wells, corridors, reservoirs for conventional oil, conventional gas; bitumen, unconventional gas (e.g., shale gas), unconventional oil (e.g., carbonate).

Average annual mining footprint area added or footprint growth scenario

Based on resource availability, published plans, or expert opinion.

Includes: gravel, mineral, uranium, coal, bitumen, peat mines, and facilities; roads and exploration camps; bitumen tailings ponds.

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 31

Metric Variable Data Sources Notes

Land use Simultations (continued)

Average annual energy footprint area added or footprint growth scenario

Based on resource availability, published plans, or expert opinion.

Includes facilities and plants (hydroelectric, wind, nuclear, and hydrocarbon) wells (exploration, production, injection, and water), pipelines, transmission lines, roads, and reservoirs.

Average annual agriculture footprint area added or footprint growth scenario

Based on provincial or territorial databases, published plans or expert opinion.

Includes cropland, grazing rangeland, farms, ranches, livestock production/processing facilities.

Average annual human settlement footprint area added or footprint growth scenario

Based on provincial or territorial databases, published municipal/urban development plans, or expert opinion based on historic growth patterns and published findings.

Includes cities, towns, rural residences, cabins.

Average annual transportation footprint area added or footprint growth scenario

Based on provincial or territorial databases, published municipal/urban development plans, or expert opinion based on historic growth patterns and published findings.

Includes major highways, minor roads, railways.

Reclamation trajectories for each linear corridor and clearing type

Based on resource availability, published plans of FMU holder, or expert opinion.

Used to simulate linear corridor densities and disturbed areas in planning 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 planning area.

Climate Change

Projected influence on natural fire rate

Based on relevant scientific research results.

Used to simulate fire return intervals in scenarios of 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.

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 32

APPENDIX D. Template for Assessing Caribou Action Plans

1. Action Planning Goal & Principles

Not

App

licab

le

Inad

equa

te

Adeq

uate

Exem

plar

y

Gap or Comment

Is the action planning goal consistent with the achievement of self-sustaining caribou populations within the planning area? Does the action planning goal address restoration and maintenance of caribou habitat? Are the stated principles consistent with the CBFA? Are appropriate spatial and temporal scales considered?

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 33

2. Review of Existing Management Policies

Not

App

licab

le

Inad

equa

te

Adeq

uate

Exem

plar

y

Gap or Comment

Are existing provincial land use policies consistent with the stated caribou action planning goals?Are existing FPAC member company forest management planning documents consistent with CBFA 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 planning area?Are habitat suitability (quantity, quality, and spatial configuration) and mortality risk both addressed?

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 34

3. Planning Area Identification & Assessment of Range Conditions

(Current & Future)

Not

App

licab

le

Inad

equa

te

Adeq

uate

Exem

plar

y

Gap or Comment

Is the planning area defined so as to 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 the spatial delineation of caribou habitat suitability adequate?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 caribou demographics and/or habitat?Does the plan adequately identify best available habitat? Does the plan define critical habitat in a manner consistent with Environment Canada (2008, 2011)?

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 35

4. Defining Management Measures

Not

App

licab

le

Inad

equa

te

Adeq

uate

Exem

plar

y

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 use systematic conservation planning to identify for protection areas that have important caribou values?Does the plan provide tenure-specific analysis to FPAC members 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 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 planning area and provide clear and effective strategies for managing those effects?

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 36

5. Engagement and Collaboration With Others

Not

App

licab

le

Inad

equa

te

Adeq

uate

Exem

plar

y

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?

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 37

6. Socio-Economic Assessment (CBFA in progress)

Not

App

licab

le

Inad

equa

te

Adeq

uate

Exem

plar

y

Gap or Comment

Has the plan adequately incorporated assessment of the socio-economic impact of identified management measures?

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 38

APPENDIX E. Disturbance Threshold Examples

1. INTRODUCTIONIt is clear that planning and mitigation of activities at local project scales has not successfully maintained caribou in many regions of Canada. Objectives-based cumulative effects management is well established for air and water quality, but represents a new, innovative, and often contentious approach to integrated land management. With this approach, limits on land use-based impacts help to sustain or restore desired landscape conditions while still allowing economic and social objectives to be met. Explicit regional or sub-regional objectives, frequently called targets or thresholds, can be used to inform decision-making on the regulation and assessment of individual activities or projects (Kennett 2006; Salmo Consulting Inc. 2006; Antoniuk et al. 2009).

Total disturbance is a more robust predictor of the ability of a given range to support a sustainable caribou population than is the amount of suitable habitat alone (Environment Canada 2008; Sorensen et al. 2008; ALT 2009; Dzus et al. 2010; Schneider et al. 2010). Disturbance thresholds thereby provide a tool to identify how much cumulative human disturbance poses a socially unacceptable risk to the persistence of a caribou population. Because boreal caribou appear to be among the most sensitive species to disturbance, caribou disturbance thresholds may also be valuable as a precautionary approach to biodiversity maintenance in Canada’s boreal forest.

While the probability of caribou persistence is inversely related to combined disturbance (i.e., natural and anthropogenic), there appears to be no absolute value that differentiates sustainable and unsustainable conditions across the boreal forest. Caribou disturbance thresholds must therefore be risk-based and reflect both current range conditions and anticipated future trends over at least 40 years. This reflects the minimum time needed to restore the direct and indirect effects of disturbed habitat (Vors et al. 2007; ALT 2009).

2. CBFA GENERAL GUIDANCEThe CBFA mandates delineation of disturbance thresholds for the management of critical habitat for caribou (CBFA Decision Note Goal 3, May 2010). However, regional working groups should acknowledge that the disturbance threshold approach has high uncertainty and adopt a logical and transparent approach when developing their recommendations. Inherent uncertainty has most frequently been addressed by building in a safety margin when establishing thresholds (Bull 1991, 1992). The ultimate challenge for action plans is to identify an ‘acceptable level of risk to caribou’ in each planning area to maintain or enhance the probability of self-sustaining - and ideally resilient - local populations while enabling economic and social demands for forest products and other resources

A caribou disturbance threshold was developed and adopted for the North Yukon Land Use Plan using a planning process similar to that described in the main body of the action planning framework. (Francis and Hamm 2009; NYPC 2009).

While there is no standardized approach to disturbance threshold development, approaches that regional working groups can consider are introduced below, for planning areas in both large continuous ranges and small discrete ranges. Because there are significant uncertainties surrounding the threshold approach to caribou management, it is strongly recommended that a series of long-term studies and monitoring protocols be established to reduce the uncertainty surrounding this potentially valuable management tool (see preamble and section 3.2.3 in the main body of the action planning framework).

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 39

The most practical and effective approach to achieving caribou conservation and economic values is to link disturbance thresholds to land management zones defined by the principles identified in this framework. This integrated land management system should be designed to maintain high quality, older conifer-lichen forests in a pattern that minimizes mortality risk by allowing caribou to avoid predators and human activity through spatial separation (Smith et al. 2000; O’Brien et al. 2006; ALT 2009; Courbin et al. 2009). A zonation approach also provides regional working groups with a good opportunity to explicitly consider linkages and gaps with protected area planning efforts, as shown in Figure 1.

Regional working groups should refer to threshold guidance being developed by Environment Canada, other references on integrated threshold management systems (AENV and CASA 1999; see also caribou discussion in Antoniuk et al. 2009), knowledgeable regional experts, and any additional guidance developed by the CBFA Science Committee and National Working Group.

This appendix elaborates on three integrated zonation-threshold options regional working groups may consider. Table A5-1 briefly describes each option, notes its relevance to large continuous and small discrete ranges, and summarizes advantages and disadvantages of each option relative to the risk of caribou decline, resilience to natural disturbance, ease of implementation, and risk to economic outcomes. Figures A5-1 through A5-3 provide one or two conceptual schematics of each option. Selection of the most appropriate integrated land management option will depend on a variety of ecological and socio-economic factors in a given planning area. (See also the preamble to this methodological framework.)

A common conclusion from virtually all boreal caribou studies is that large areas of continuous caribou habitat are preferred to a fragmented distribution of habitat patches (e.g., Smith et al. 2000; Schaefer 2003; O’Brien et al. 2006; Courtois et al. 2008; Fortin et al. 2008). All available evidence therefore suggests that the lowest risk option to maintain a self-sustaining local caribou population is to concentrate land use into an intensive development zone and separate these areas as much as possible from large, undisturbed caribou conservation zones (Courtois et al. 2004; Courbin et al. 2009) for 80 years or more. As discussed below, a single range-wide threshold provides the least flexibility, and multi-zone options the most flexibility, in this regard.

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 40

Table A5-1. Advantages and disadvantages of one-, two-, and three-zone integrated land management systems

Disa

dvan

tage

s

• Hig

hest

risk

to c

arib

ou: t

o da

te, l

ong-

term

m

aint

enan

ce o

f sel

f-sus

tain

ing

carib

ou

popu

latio

ns h

as n

ot o

ccur

red

in in

tens

ivel

y de

velo

ped

rang

es w

here

pre

dato

r abu

ndan

ce is

hi

gh w

ithou

t mor

talit

y m

anag

emen

t.• H

as le

ast r

esili

ence

to w

ildfir

e an

d ot

her n

atur

al

proc

esse

s.• T

he fe

asib

ility

of r

esto

ring

inta

ct h

abita

t in

anth

ropo

geni

cally

dist

urbe

d bo

real

fore

st is

not

ye

t con

firm

ed (M

etsa

rant

a 20

06).

• Car

ibou

may

or m

ay n

ot m

ove

to su

itabl

e ha

bita

t else

whe

re w

ithin

the

zone

(Ant

oniu

k et

al

. 200

7; C

ourt

ois e

t al.

2008

; Fai

lle e

t al.

2010

; Tr

acz e

t al.

2010

). • H

ighl

y re

liant

on

inte

grat

ed lo

ng-te

rm sp

atial

pl

anni

ng o

f all

indu

stria

l lan

d us

e, in

clud

ing

hydr

ocar

bon

sect

or th

at d

oes n

ot d

o lo

ng-t

erm

pl

anni

ng a

t the

land

scap

e sc

ale.

• Low

risk

car

ibou

thre

shol

ds w

ould

like

ly

prec

lude

eco

nom

ical

ly v

iabl

e fo

rest

har

vest

.

• Nee

d to

app

ly sc

ienc

e-ba

sed

tota

l dist

urba

nce

popu

latio

n re

latio

nshi

p to

sub-

rang

e sc

ale

to

deve

lop

zone

-spe

cific

risk

-bas

ed th

resh

olds

.• M

ore

com

plex

to d

esig

n an

d im

plem

ent

• Has

inte

rmed

iate

resil

ienc

e to

wild

fire

and

othe

r nat

ural

pro

cess

es.

• Has

inte

rmed

iate

relia

nce

on in

tegr

ated

long

-te

rm sp

atial

pla

nnin

g of

all

indu

stria

l lan

d us

e.

Adva

ntag

es

• Risk

-bas

ed zo

ne th

resh

old

can

be

deve

lope

d at

sam

e sc

ale

as to

tal

dist

urba

nce

popu

latio

n re

latio

nshi

p.• S

impl

e an

d co

ncep

tual

ly a

ppea

ling

• Eas

iest

in w

hich

to d

efine

thre

shol

ds

• Red

uces

risk

to c

arib

ou re

lativ

e to

one

-zo

ne o

ption

; hig

h ris

k in

dev

elop

men

t zo

ne is

offs

et b

y lo

wer

risk

in c

arib

ou

cons

erva

tion

zone

. • S

uppo

rts l

ow-r

isk th

resh

old

for

carib

ou c

onse

rvati

on zo

ne(s

) and

hi

gher

-risk

thre

shol

d fo

r dev

elop

men

t zo

ne a

rea(

s) w

hich

, whe

n co

mbi

ned,

in

crea

ses p

roba

bilit

y of

ach

ievi

ng b

oth

biod

iver

sity

and

econ

omic

obj

ectiv

es.

• Red

uces

risk

to c

arib

ou b

y pr

ovid

ing

oppo

rtun

ity to

man

age

best

ava

ilabl

e ha

bita

t in

a zo

ne-s

peci

fic fa

shio

n.• A

llow

s im

plem

enta

tion

of zo

ne-

spec

ific

thre

shol

ds w

ith c

lear

er ru

les.

Desc

riptio

n

Sing

le m

ulti-

use

zone

m

anag

ed fo

r bot

h in

dust

rial a

ctivi

ty a

nd

carib

ou c

onse

rvati

on

(Fig

ure

A5-1

).

Pote

ntial

ly a

pplic

able

to

larg

e, c

ontin

uous

rang

es

Feat

ures

a ‘c

arib

ou

cons

erva

tion

zone

’ m

anag

ed to

ach

ieve

a

self-

sust

aini

ng c

arib

ou

popu

latio

n (F

igur

e A5

-2)

and

a ‘d

evel

opm

ent

zone

’ man

aged

to

achi

eve

econ

omic

be

nefit

s fro

m in

dust

rial

deve

lopm

ent.

Pote

ntial

ly a

pplic

able

to

larg

e, c

ontin

uous

rang

es

and

smal

l disc

rete

rang

es

Syst

em

One

-zo

ne

Two-

zone

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 41

Disa

dvan

tage

s

• Nee

d to

app

ly sc

ienc

e-ba

sed

tota

l di

stur

banc

e po

pula

tion

rela

tions

hip

to

sub-

rang

e sc

ale

to d

evel

op zo

ne-s

peci

fic

risk-

base

d th

resh

olds

.• M

ost c

ompl

ex to

des

ign

and

impl

emen

t

Adva

ntag

es

• Low

est r

isk to

car

ibou

; mos

t lik

ely

to

incr

ease

spati

al se

para

tion

betw

een

carib

ou a

nd in

tens

ivel

y de

velo

ped

area

s w

ith h

ighe

r pre

y/pr

edat

or a

bund

ance

• Enh

ance

s opp

ortu

nitie

s to

man

age

sens

itive

site

s or m

ovem

ent c

orrid

ors

• Mos

t res

ilien

t to

wild

fire

and

othe

r nat

ural

pr

oces

ses

• Lea

st re

liant

on

long

-term

inte

grat

ed

spati

al p

lann

ing

for a

ll in

dust

rial l

and

use.

• Hig

hest

pro

babi

lity

of su

ppor

ting

econ

omic

ally

via

ble

fore

st h

arve

st

Desc

riptio

n

As tw

o-zo

ne, b

ut w

ith a

‘spe

cial

m

anag

emen

t zon

e’ p

rovi

ding

a

rest

ricte

d de

velo

pmen

t buff

er to

re

duce

pre

datio

n/ m

orta

lity

risk

with

in th

e ca

ribou

con

serv

ation

zo

ne o

r im

prov

e co

nnec

tivity

be

twee

n tw

o ca

ribou

con

serv

ation

zo

ne a

reas

(Fig

ure

A5-3

).

Pote

ntial

ly a

pplic

able

to la

rge,

co

ntinu

ous r

ange

s and

smal

l di

scre

te ra

nges

Syst

em

Thre

e-zo

ne

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 42

Figure A5-1. Conceptual schematic of one-zone management system White boxes represent cutblock-road system.

Figure A5-2. Conceptual schematics of two-zone management systems

a) b)

Figure A5-3. Conceptual schematic of three-zone management system

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 43

3. Developing Disturbance ThresholdsThe following basic steps, applicable to all land management system options and outlined in section 3.2.1 above, are described in more detail here. Specific examples of each step follow in section 4.

Step 1: Establish a risk-based local population objective

The regional working group’s first step should be to adopt or establish a risk-based local population objective26 that achieves the Caribou Action Plan goal of self-sustaining caribou populations in the planning area. Where such objectives do not exist in existing GCAPs, the objective can be derived from the Environment Canada (2008 or 2011 update when available) disturbance population relationship, population viability assessment, estimated population size, and group consensus on acceptable risk level. RWGs may wish to consider the implications of a range of risk levels by working through the steps outlined below and potentially by inclusion of a scenario modeling component as well to understand the interactions between desired risk and future natural and anthropogenic disturbance.

Step 2: Identify the minimum area of functional habitat required

For two- and three-zone options, current and future range condition analyses should then be used to estimate the minimum area and composition of functional27 habitat that would be required to achieve the local population objective (i.e., in the absence of wolf and other prey management), considering the long-term influence of natural disturbance.

At least two methods could be applied:

1. Consider the amount and location of existing total range disturbance to calculate the area of habitat in caribou conservation zone that would be required to achieve the desired recruitment level given assumed average natural disturbance rates.

2. Consider the desired local population size and area required to sustain this number of animals given assumed natural disturbance rates and caribou density in a stable, comparable range.

Step 3: Select one or more areas of ‘best available habitat’

The next step for two and three zone options would be to select one or more ‘best available habitat’ areas that summed together provide the desired minimum functional habitat area, provide all requirements to support a self-sustaining local caribou population (as defined for the planning area), and reflect current caribou distribution in the planning area.

Long-term suitability is enhanced in areas that have the following attributes: larger; more continuous habitat; contains areas/features that are disproportionately important for caribou, including refuge habitat; less current human footprint; lower perimeter to area ratio; further from predator ‘source habitat’; connected to functional habitat in adjacent planning areas; and less future disturbance as suggested by future range condition analyses. Where planning area conditions permit, the ideal approach would be to select a large, continuous, area of functional habitat that meets these criteria and designate this polygon as the caribou conservation zone (Figure 2a).

In practice, regional working groups will likely need to consider systems that include two or more permanent caribou conservation zone areas within a development zone matrix (FiguresA5-2b, 3). However, this alternative will have higher risk to caribou, so a greater total area of caribou conservation zone will likely be needed to achieve the defined population objective while reflecting current caribou distribution. The location and connectivity between caribou conservation zones also becomes an important consideration. Where multiple caribou conservation zone areas are required, RWGs should seek spatial arrangements and combinations of best available habitat areas that have the following attributes (as well as those listed in the paragraph above): largest habitat areas with the smallest

26 Regional working groups may define a population objective on the basis of population trend, population size, or a combination of the two. For example, Environment Canada (2008) identified a mean recruitment threshold of 28.9 calves/100 cows as a requirement for a self-sustaining population and concluded that populations of 300 and 150 animals with moderate calf and adult female survival had quasi-extinction risks of 10% and 50% respectively. This acknowledges that disturbance thresholds are probabilistic rather than deterministic.27 See description in section 3.1.2.1 and McCutchen et al. (2009).

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 44

distance between areas; fewest known barriers to movement exist; lowest combined perimeter to area ratio; further from areas of permanent habitat loss (e.g., agricultural lands, highways, and communities); and further from the southern edge of boreal caribou distribution. Applying a three-zone system with special management zone areas (Figure A5-3) provides another option to improve connectivity between caribou conservation zone areas.

Although Caribou Action Plans are intended to be science-based, regional working groups should also consider the location of merchantable timber, other known resources, and future land use scenarios to identify ‘best conservation candidates’ that are most likely to be successfully implemented. Given the choice between two otherwise equivalent alternatives for caribou conservation zones, the option that has the least overlap with other resource potential would be preferred.

Step 4: Establish risk-based disturbance thresholds

Next, the regional working group would establish disturbance thresholds for each zone. This would necessitate another discussion on the acceptable level of risk for caribou persistence as a basis for establishing total disturbance thresholds within the planning area and associated zone(s). Conceptually, total disturbance thresholds would be lowest in the caribou conservation zone and highest in the development zone (Figure A5-2, two zone system) and intermediate in a one zone system (Figure A5-1). In a three zone system (Figure A5-3), total disturbance thresholds would likely be lowest, intermediate, and highest in the caribou conservation zone, special management zone, and development zone, respectively.

In ranges or planning areas that are already highly disturbed, RWGs should derive total disturbance thresholds to achieve the local population objective, regardless of current status (i.e., candidate disturbance threshold may be below current total disturbance value). The intent is to encourage restoration and discourage any additional anthropogenic disturbance that cannot be offset by restoration.

Step 5: Describe the proposed integrated land management system option(s)

Once zones are defined and candidate thresholds are established, regional working groups should link best management practices, adaptive management, population management measures, and innovative silvicultural methods for each zone so that implementation expectations are clear.

Methods for calculating and implementing disturbance thresholds should be clearly documented by RWGs, consistent with the relationships or assumptions that were used to derive them. For example, depending on the relationship used to establish the disturbance threshold(s), anthropogenic disturbance may or may not need to be buffered28, and the data sources used to calculate total disturbance need to be specified for consistency29.

Examples of how these steps could be applied to planning areas in large continuous and small discrete ranges are provided below.

28 Environment Canada (2008) buffered anthropogenic features, Sorensen et al. (2008) buffered linear features, and Schneider et al. (2010) did not buffer linear features because they found that buffered and unbuffered variables were highly correlated.29 For example, should all seismic lines be included, or should low impact seismic lines be excluded? Should the threshold be calculated at the range, zone, ecodistrict, or watershed scale?

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 45

4. RANGE-SPECIFIC EXAMPLES

4.1 LARGE CONTINUOUS RANGEIn much of Canada’s boreal forest, woodland caribou occupy extensive, relatively continuous ranges of conifer-lichen habitat. For planning areas in such large continuous ranges we recommend regional working groups consider all three alternative threshold-zonation approaches (Table A5-1, Figures A5-1 through A5-3). Regional working groups may also wish to consider implementation of different approaches in different planning areas within their region following an active adaptive management approach.

4.1.1 Large Continuous Range: Two Zones with Different Management Objectives

The two-zone option (Figure A5-2) is considered a good candidate for planning areas in large, continuous ranges.

Step 1: The RWG’s first step would be to establish a risk-based local population objective that achieves the Caribou Action Plan goal of self-sustaining caribou populations in the planning area. Where such objectives do not exist in existing GCAPs, the RWG may derive a population objective on the basis of population trend, population size, or a combination of the two. Using information provided in the Environment Canada (2008) document as an example, a mean recruitment threshold of 28.9 calves/100 cows was identified as the requirement for a self-sustaining population. This value (or a slightly higher value to reduce risk of decline) would then be translated into suitable planning area disturbance conditions as described in steps 2 through 4. Alternatively, the regional working group could adopt a risk-based local population size. Environment Canada (2008) concluded that populations of 300 and 150 animals with moderate calf and adult female survival had quasi-extinction risks of 10% and 50% respectively.

Regional working groups will need to consider local conditions and agree on the level of acceptable long-term risk when establishing the local population objective, because no single number provides the ‘right’ answer. RWGs may wish to consider the implications of a range of risk levels by working through the steps outlined below with different population objectives.

Step 2: Current and future range condition analyses should then be used to estimate the minimum area of functional30 habitat that would be required to support a self-sustaining local population objective (i.e., in the absence of wolf and other prey management), considering the long-term influence of natural disturbance. At least two methods could be applied:

1. Consider the amount and location of existing total range disturbance to calculate the area of habitat in caribou conservation zone that would be required to achieve the desired recruitment level given assumed average natural disturbance rates.

2. Consider the desired local population size and area required to sustain this number of animals given assumed natural disturbance rates and caribou density in stable, comparable ranges.

Step 3: The next step would be to select one or more ‘best available habitat’ areas that summed together provide the desired minimum functional habitat area, provide all requirements to support a self-sustaining local caribou population (as defined for the planning area), and reflect current caribou distribution. All remaining areas within the planning area would then be designated as the development zone (Figure A5-2a).

In practice, RWGs will likely need to consider systems that include two or more permanent caribou conservation zone areas within a development zone matrix (Figure A5-2b). However, this alternative will have higher risk to caribou, so a larger total conservation zone area will likely be needed to achieve the defined population objective while reflecting current caribou distribution. The location and connectivity between conservation zones also becomes an important consideration. Useful information on the risk associated with natural disturbance can be obtained with scenario simulations for different land management system designs. There may also be an opportunity for synergies with protected areas planning by using available modeling tools to aggregate best available habitat until the desired protected area or caribou conservation zone size is attained.

30 See description in section 3.1.2.1 and McCutchen et al. (2009).

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 46

Although caribou action plans are intended to be science-based, RWGs should also consider the location of commercially-viable timber, other known resources, and future land-use scenarios to identify ‘best conservation candidates’. Given the choice between two otherwise equivalent alternatives for caribou conservation zones, the option that has the least overlap with other resource potential would be preferred, although both options should be presented for further evaluation.

Step 4: Next, the regional working group would establish disturbance thresholds for the caribou conservation zone and development zone. This would necessitate another discussion on the acceptable level of risk for caribou persistence as a basis for establishing total disturbance thresholds within one or more caribou planning area(s). The Environment Canada (2008) total disturbance-population relationship31 (hereafter EC relationship) is used here as an example of how RWGs could apply available information to set a risk-based disturbance threshold. Environment Canada’s supplementary analyses should be applied once available.

The EC (2008) relationship indicates that a very low total disturbance threshold, of ≤10% (5-15% total buffered disturbance) would be required to achieve a 90% probability of persistence at the range scale, whereas a moderate total disturbance threshold, of 24-49% (20-50% total buffered disturbance), would achieve a 50% probability of persistence. (Note that actual levels of risk should be set to reflect the RWG’s vision for caribou conservation areas and development zones, respectively.) Regional working groups may wish to build in a safety margin to these values (Bull 1991, 1992; Antoniuk et al. 2009) using probabilistic intervals32 or another appropriate metric because of the uncertainty that may be introduced by translating the EC range-scale relationship to smaller caribou planning areas and management zones. Uncertainty surrounding predator-prey relationships should also be considered, for as noted earlier, the EC relationship appears to underestimate recruitment for some ranges and overestimate recruitment for others. This may be due to time lags and differences in predator density and associated mortality risk.

Regional working groups could also apply the EC (2008) or updated disturbance-population relationship to derive thresholds for multiple zones within the planning area. With this approach, an overall risk-based total disturbance threshold would be achieved by area, by weighting a low disturbance threshold in the caribou conservation zone and higher threshold in the development zone to achieve the desired planning area-wide probability of persistence. For example, to achieve an overall planning area threshold of 40% total disturbance, the planning area could be divided into two zones: 30% caribou conservation zone with a total disturbance threshold of 10%, and 70% development zone with a total disturbance threshold of 53%. The probability of achieving the planning area local population objective can then be estimated for each zone and the entire planning area, although implementation will most likely need to be zone-specific33.

The need for, and value of, development zone disturbance thresholds is another area of uncertainty. Conceptually, the total disturbance threshold would be higher in development zone areas to achieve desired socio-economic outcomes, where the planning area-scale local population objective can be met in the caribou conservation zone. The total disturbance threshold for the development zone should reflect the need for long-term connectivity between planning areas and maintenance of other biodiversity values. In planning areas where objectives cannot be met in the caribou conservation zone alone, RWGs should consider the three-zone system discussed below.

Step 5: Methods for calculating and implementing disturbance thresholds should be clearly documented by regional working groups, consistent with the relationships or assumptions that were used to derive them. For example, depending on the relationship used to establish the disturbance threshold(s), anthropogenic disturbance may or may not need to be buffered34, and the data sources used to calculate total disturbance need to be specified for consistency35. Other implementation issues are discussed in Antoniuk et al. (2009).

Once zones are defined and candidate thresholds are established, RWGs should link best management practices, adaptive management, and population management measures to each zone (see ALT 2009).

31 See Figure 8, page 25 in Environment Canada (2008).32 See Figure 8, page 25 in Environment Canada (2008).33Using speed limits as an analogy, if a speed limit of 30 km/h is adopted for school zones to reduce risk and a speed limit of 100 km/h is adopted for highways to maximize economic benefits, the average speed limit for the study area based on proportionate length of road in each zone has no management value, because enforcement and management is specific to each speed zone, not the weighted average. 34 Environment Canada (2008) buffered anthropogenic features, Sorensen et al. (2008) buffered linear features, and Schneider et al. (2010) did not buffer linear features because they found that buffered and unbuffered variables were highly correlated.35 For example, should all seismic lines be included, or should low impact seismic lines be excluded? Should the threshold be calculated at the range, zone, ecodistrict, or watershed scale?

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 47

4.1.2 Large Continuous Range: Three Zones with Different Management Objectives

The three-zone option is best suited to large, continuous ranges where existing or future functionality for caribou is reduced, physical and structural connectivity needs to be improved, or reduced mortality risk in caribou conservation zone areas is desired (Figure A5-3). In highly disturbed planning areas, RWGs may also consider using smaller areas of best available habitat as a nucleus for restoring functional habitat in adjacent special management zone areas.

Regional working groups would follow the first three steps described in Section 4.1.1 above for the two-zone option: 1) establish a risk-based population objective; 2) estimate the minimum functional habitat area required to achieve this objective; and 3) select a series of ‘best available habitat’ areas that together provide the desired minimum functional habitat area and all requirements to achieve the local population objective.

The difference would come in step 4, when linking selected best available habitat patches into a range-scale system. One or more special management zone areas could be used to increase the probability of persistence at the planning area scale by improving physical and structural connectivity between caribou conservation zone areas; reducing indirect predation risk on isolated caribou conservation zone areas; and increasing the area available to accommodate natural disturbance (Figure A5-3). The criteria presented above for selecting a system of caribou conservation zone areas are also relevant to special management zone areas. The location and size of special management zone areas should minimize predation risk considering documented predator hunting distances, the location of high suitability habitat for other prey species, and low potential for competing human uses.

Disturbance thresholds and management measures for special management zones should be designed to reflect their intent. Conceptually, disturbance thresholds would be intermediate between caribou conservation and development zones to reduce risk at the range scale. As with the two-zone option, methods for calculating and implementing disturbance thresholds in each zone should be clearly documented by RWGs, consistent with the relationships or assumptions that were used to derive them. In areas where predator populations are already high, prey and predator management might be required initially in the special management zone to minimize indirect mortality risk (such as where intensive disturbance is located within predator movement distance from caribou conservation zones).

4.1.3 Large Continuous Range: Single Multiple-Use Zone

While conceptually appealing, the single-zone option is considered high risk for caribou (Table A5-1) and is most applicable to large, continuous, relatively undisturbed ranges where the forestry sector is the principal current and future land user.

With a single-zone approach, the regional working groups would need to reach consensus on the acceptable level of risk for caribou persistence and use this to establish a disturbance threshold. For example, the EC (2008) relationship indicates that a very low total disturbance threshold (≤10-15% total buffered disturbance36) would be required to achieve a 90% probability of persistence at the range scale; a moderate disturbance threshold (24-49% total buffered disturbance) would achieve a 50% probability of persistence. These values could change as a result of the pending Environment Canada reanalysis.

In addition, because of its reliance on appropriate spatial configuration over time, the single-zone approach will require specific guidance on timber harvesting sequence, industry best management practices, adaptive management, and predator and prey population management measures assumed when deriving the thresholds. Useful information on the risk associated with natural disturbance and other land uses can be obtained with scenario simulations for different spatial configurations and rotational harvest designs.

36 See Figure 8, page 25 in Environment Canada (2008).

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 48

4.2 SMALL DISCRETE OR DISTURBED RANGEIn parts of Canada where caribou occupy small or less functional ranges (e.g., northeastern Alberta, ALT 2009), a modified two- or three-zone approach should be considered to allow integration of caribou conservation and land use. RWGs will need to use smaller areas of best available habitat as a nucleus for improving planning area or range-scale habitat connectivity and population performance.

Regional working groups would follow the first three steps described above for the large continuous range two-zone option: 1) establish a risk-based population objective; 2) estimate the minimum functional habitat area required to achieve this objective; and 3) select a series of ‘best available habitat’ areas that provide the desired minimum functional habitat area and all requirements for caribou persistence.

In small ranges or highly disturbed planning areas, it may not be possible to identify zoning-disturbance threshold solutions that support a self-sustaining local caribou population in the absence of mortality management (i.e., control of predators and other prey). The regional working group will thus need to propose an integrated disturbance threshold-zoning system with periodic (or continuous) predator and other prey management that minimizes future risk of caribou extirpation. In areas with high predator populations, active management of predators and other prey species will likely be required for decades, but restoration of functional habitat must be implemented in parallel to avoid mortality management in perpetuity (ALT 2009).

Selected caribou conservation zone areas should include the largest areas of best available habitat along with areas that have the highest potential to recover from past disturbance and increase in size through habitat restoration. The criteria used to select components of the caribou conservation zone would be identical to those for the two- and three-zone options above: larger; more continuous habitat; contains areas/features that are disproportionately important for caribou, including refuge habitat; less human footprint; lower perimeter to area ratio; and further from predator ‘source habitat’.

One or more special management zone areas could be used to increase habitat functionality in the planning area by improving physical and structural connectivity between caribou conservation zones, reducing indirect predation effects on isolated caribou conservation zones, and increasing the area available to accommodate natural disturbance. However, all else being equal, management effort would likely be better spent increasing the size or functionality of caribou conservation zone areas in highly disturbed ranges.

Based on the EC relationship, the caribou conservation zone maximum total disturbance threshold should be relatively low, regardless of current status, to help achieve the local population objective and encourage restoration and discourage any additional anthropogenic disturbance. Priority areas for habitat conservation, restoration, and management should be identified, particularly if the disturbance threshold is already exceeded. Low to moderate total disturbance thresholds should also be considered for development zone areas to reduce risk until functional habitat is restored.

Habitat restoration will likely be a key component of caribou action plans in more heavily disturbed ranges. Priority areas for cooperative habitat conservation, restoration, and management should be identified. The objectives of habitat restoration include: restoring native vegetation compatible with adjacent areas; impeding predator / prey movement into areas of suitable habitat (e.g., blocking within upland/ lowland transitional sites); and impeding human access to areas undergoing recovery treatment to reduce incidental mortality and ongoing vegetation disturbance. Regional working groups should consider the review completed by Bentham (2007) and other best practices guides when defining suitable habitat restoration measures.

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM 49

CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT. COM410-99 Bank Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6B9Tel: 613.212.5196 | info@borealagreement.ca